§ As amended, further considered.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend) moved the omission of Clause 18, not in any partisan or factitious spirit, but in 1233 order that the House might have a further opportunity of discussing the principles that underlay it. They were now dealing with what might be called a temperance clause. Its object was, by reducing the facilities for drinking on a certain day of the week, to improve the morals of the people and to reduce drunkenness. He was not sure that to have an increase of drunkenness on Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday and a less amount of drinking on Sunday represented any movement towards temperance. It was only imposing restrictive and repressive influences on the community for a short period, and both before and after it would be possible to overleap the bounds. The financial clauses of the Bill had given great anxiety to the House, and had produced much bitter feeling, because it was felt that elements of injustice were present in them. But he did not think there would be on the part of any Member on either side of the House in regard to Sunday closing any bitter feeling or immoderation. He at any rate hoped to say what he had to advance in temperate language. The clause as it stood reduced the number of hours during which public-houses might be open on Sundays from six to three, although there would be a wide period from which the hours of opening could be selected. He did not propose to enter into a discussion of that Amendment or of the other proposal whereby a traveller must traverse an increased mileage in order to get refreshment on the Sabbath Day. These points would, he was sure, cause a good deal of discussion. Then Sunday closing was to be extended to Monmouthshire. He had no intention of discussing largely these two subsections, but he wanted to draw the attention of the House to some general considerations in regard to Sunday closing and the possible development of temperance under such a clause as this. He did not think the number of hours during which a public-house was open was at all the measure of the desire to acquire refreshments or of the use to be made of the facilities for drinking, and he was certain that unless the restrictions which they imposed had behind them the general feeling of the mass of the people they would fail. They mustinevitably produce only irritation and the avoidance of the law. If they passed this clause they ought to be quite sure that the public would not be unduly 1234 inconvenienced; if they were unduly inconvenienced, they would take every opportunity to break the law. They ought not to carry restrictions to the point of prohibition. That was the danger, for if they carried restriction to the point of prohibition they invited the secret abuse of the law. It was notable that this clause, which was intended to promote temperance, gave a certain amount of facilities for the Sabbath Day, but they had in Clause 20 a power put into the hands of any individual licensing authority to prevent any public-house in their district from being opened on Sunday. He had always opposed local option, and from one standpoint only, not because he was in sympathy with drunkenness, but because he believed that all laws relating to the exercise of the human will in such things as drink should be general in their application throughout the whole area of national life. He did not believe that they ever could produce real reform by any fragmentary and fugitive application of restrictions in any one small area, because the character and the general approval of the people must be behind legislation or it would fail. It might be thought that in a place like Letchworth, which was a picked community, they would have an illustration of what could be done by local option, but it was very much open to question whether in establishing in one small community like that a principle of this kind, they served either the individual or the general interest. The individual who wanted to take advantage of opportunity would leave that place and go elsewhere to get what he wanted, and it was this fragmentary, occasional, and haphazard kind of restriction which in most cases would not be applied with the general approval of the community. Therefore, he said that this clause, which presumably was to give facilities for three hours on a Sunday, might in any particular licensing district be removed; they would have instead local option applied. Undoubtedly the Government believed that they were going to serve temperance by restricting the number of hours on which public-houses might be open on a Sunday, but supposing public opinion was not with the Government, what did they do? They only crowded into the three hours the same amount of drinking that they had I before distributed over six hours. He 1235 honestly did not attach so much importance to the difference between three hours and six hours, but whatever importance might be attached to it, he supposed many people would say: "But you decrease the opportunities which working-men and others have for drink if you only open for a limited number of hours, and the fewer hours you open the less temptation, and, therefore, the less drinking there will be." He wondered if that was so. If there was less drinking on Sunday than upon any other day, was it due solely to the fact that public-houses were only open for six hours on that day? He did not believe it was. He believed that there was throughout this country a certain feeling attached to Sunday, a desire for quiet recreation, which reduced the drinking during that particular twenty-four hours. Of one thing he was certain, and that was that whatever this clause might accomplish, it would only restrict the opportunities of those who very properly wished to refresh themselves upon a Sunday, but his point was that it would be those on a lower level. A man in middle-class life could get in his supply of bottled beer or whisky or wine, and the rich man could have it in his cellar; there was no restriction upon him at all. But there was a remarkable limitation of the privileges of the working-man. He had some knowledge of the working-man, as good a knowledge, he thought, as some of the Labour Members, who assumed to know much more. Whether or not they approved of drink for the working-man, the working-man had an absolute right to have the same privileges for meeting the demands of his natural appetite as the rich man. The rich man had the opportunity given him by this House, and given to the poor man indeed by his club, but there were in his constituency, and in other constituencies, men who could not afford a club. They left the clubs open all day on Sunday with entertainments of various kinds for those working men who belonged to a club, but he thought it unfair to restrict the hours in which a man outside a club might have reasonable refreshment, and to give practically unlimited opportunities to the man inside a club. After all, what was the 1236 difference between a respectable public-house and a respectable club? There was very little. He thought it a lamentable thing that our public-houses should be what they were, and he frankly said that he thought it lamentable that there should be so many. He had never had any other view, but he had always been in favour of using the greatest discretion in limiting these houses, as was done under the Act of 1904. Wherever they had had absolute Sunday closing a great success, they had had behind it a well organised public opinion. He believed there was one place in the world where Sunday closing was an absolute success—in Canada. It was twenty-four years since he lived in Canada, but he saw very few changes when he went back. It was a curious thing that in Canada, where the influence of the Scotsman was so tremendous, Sunday closing should be a success and that in Scotland it was an absolute failure. It could not be suggested that it had been a success in Scotland. It had net reduced drunkenness; he would not say it had increased drunkenness, but he knew that drunkenness had not decreased in Scotland because of Sunday closing any more than drunkenness had decreased in Glasgow and Edinburgh when they began to close at 10 o'clock instead of an hour later, and when it was found that they only made excursions in vast numbers to Paisley and elsewhere in order to get what they required. Sunday closing had been a success in Canada, because the Canadian people in the mass were the most sober people in the world. It had been a success in Canada; but why? On the same basis that the stopping of all traffic on a Sunday was a success. There was a time when they could not go in a street car in Toronto or Montreal on a Sunday, or they could not get a cab, for the simple reason that there were no facilities, and public opinion was behind it. Public opinion had been behind Sunday closing in Canada; the people said they wanted it, and they adapted themselves to it because it sprung naturally out of their habit of mind and thought. What he wanted to show was that restrictions in this country did not spring from the natural instinct of the people. He did not think they had, in making their restrictions, a great body 1237 of opinion behind them, and it was not because of any lack of sympathy with making the Sabbath as holy as possible but because of the desire to see that they did not in their anxiety to secure greater temperance proceed with too great haste. The Prime Minister made a most moderate speech the other day upon this very clause. He said they ought not to move ahead of public opinion, and that that was why he could not consent to absolute Sunday closing—it would be ahead of public opinion. Now, he thought they were in danger of moving in too great haste; this was an experiment which the Government were going to impose upon the country. He had no doubt that if this Bill became law it would take some time to discover whether it produced the desired result, but he was certain that in any case figures would be made to prove a great deal. One could quote a great many figures with regard to drinking in Wales. One could suggest, as his noble friend beside him pointed out in the last debate, that Sunday closing had been an absolute failure in Wales, if they were to take the figures for drunkenness; but an hon. Member opposite had made a very able speech in which he tried to show that Wales was highly temperate and that whatever drunkenness there was in Cardiff was due to excursions made from elsewhere.
§ MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)said the two Commissions appointed by the Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was the head, and composed of a majority of Tory Members, had proved conclusively that Sunday closing was a great success in Wales.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was only saying that they could make figures prove almost anything, but the House could see that he was not basing his arguments at all upon figures. He had been arguing upon a different basis. If Sunday closing proved a success, it would be because the general opinion of the country was behind it, and that it sprang naturally out of the character of the people. They were attempting a very serious experiment with this particular clause. He was sure that it was unwise further to restrict the hours in which 1238 public-houses should be open on Sundays. He believed that if they had them open for three hours they would only crowd into those three hours the amount of drinking that otherwise would be spread over six hours, and the effect, so far as drunkenness was concerned, would be nil, and the general moral result would also be nil. The complexities of a measure like this were naturally very great and the difficulties in the way of the Government which endeavoured to deal with temperance were very great. He did not want by anything he might say to make those difficulties greater, but he did say that in the last debate did not they have any good or well-founded arguments put forward why these restrictions should be made, and he hoped that that day convincing arguments would be adduced. As for applying the Sunday Closing Act to Monmouthshire, he could understand those who lived in Wales desiring to see that neighbouring county brought into line with their particular view but hon. Members opposite must not be surprised if it was pointed out from that side of the House that if drinking in Monmouthshire and in Wales was to be judged from the evidence of arrests for drunkenness, it would be found that the advantage lay with Monmouthshire. He believed, for instance, that there were ninety-one arrests for illicit sale of liquor in 1907 in Glamorganshire, and none in Monmouthshire. It was for the Government to show that there was good reason for believing that the inclusion of Monmouthshire in the area of Sunday closing would be for the good of that county, and would not lower instead of raising the status of morality there. He moved the rejection of the clause because he hoped there would spring out of it a discussion which would show to the House that the efforts of the Government in this particular clause could be well defended, and that the sense of the House as a whole was behind it, because unless they got the sense of the House and of the country as a whole behind every step they took in temperance reform or in any other moral reform, the result would only be to the disadvantage of the general character of the people and to the reduction of morality generally. He begged to move.
§ EARL WINTERTON (Sussex, Horsham)said his hon. friend had referred to certain figures that had been quoted by him with regard to drunkenness in Wales and Scotland, and had said that if those figures were to be taken as accurate they would show that Sunday closing had been a failure in Wales, and the hon. Member for Burnley somewhat discourteously stated that he would not take those figures. Those figures, however, did not come from his own side. His point was that if they were to go on figures with regard to drunkenness in Wales and Scotland for the last ten years from the findings of the Royal Commissions, there was nothing to lead the House to believe that the Government were justified in this principle of restriction.
§ * THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) Yorkshire, ClevelandDoes the noble Lord refer to figures with regard to Sunday drunkenness or with regard to drunkenness generally?
§ EARL WINTERTONsaid he was speaking with regard to the effect of restrictions on Sunday upon the amount of drunkenness, and he coupled with that what was quite as important, the number of prosecutions for illicit sales of drink.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELThis is an important matter, and in order to make it clear, will the noble Lord state whether the figures as to Sunday drunkenness include arrests for drunkenness on Saturday night?
§ EARL WINTERTONsaid he did not propose to quote all these figures. He quoted them on the Committee stage of the Bill, and it was either the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Solicitor-General who said that figures could be made to prove anything. It had not been disputed on a former stage of the Bill that the figures for Scotland and Wales with respect to Sunday drunkenness and illicit sales showed that the effect of the Sunday restriction was to produce a large amount of sales of drink in unlicensed houses. Probably there would 1240 be less open drunkenness for the simple reason that people would get drunk on premises which were not under police control. If the effect had been to produce an enormous increase of illicit sales on Sunday, and not a corresponding decrease in drunkenness, then he said the system of restriction of sale on Sunday had broken down. He wished to put to the Government and their friends the temperance leaders, the exact position in which the country would be placed it the clause was adopted. The publicans of England would then be under what might really be described as three different laws or sets of regulations. In the first place, they would have to provide food without alcohol at any time, day or night, from twelve o'clock midnight on Saturday to twelve o'clock on Sunday night. Secondly, they would be under another regulation with regard to the sale of drink with meals. A publican was allowed, and, in fact, more or less compelled under the Bill, to supply alcohol with meals to any person who desired it on Sunday during those hours at which he was permitted to supply it at the present time. Thirdly, as he understood, the publican was permitted to supply drink with any kind of meal for one hour between noon and 3 p.m., and for any two hours between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. He had not the least hesitation in saying that there had never been anything in a Bill passed through that House so confusing and muddling as the regulations now set forth. They had never been dreamt of by any other Government or included in any other Bill. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in the country a short time ago, said that the greatest intellects of the land were ranged on the side of this Bill.
§ EARL WINTERTONsaid that no doubt the hon. Gentleman agreed with the President of the Board of Trade. All he could say was: If the right hon. Gentleman is right, may Providence protect any country in which the greatest intellects after thinking over it for two years can produce no clearer clause than that which we are discussing. He 1241 appealed to the Government on this point to take some step either there or in another place to have the regulations made clearer for the unfortunate publican. Referring to the first subsection of the clause dealing with the restriction of hours on Sunday, he said that, so far as he understood, there was nothing in the Amendments made by the Solicitor-General at the beginning of the Report stage which would safeguard the working man who wished to obtain his Sunday beer to drink with his dinner. It appeared to him that some districts would be absolutely prevented from supplying it if the magistrates chose to pass a regulation making the hour for Sunday opening between 2 and 3 o'clock. That would absolutely preclude the working man from obtaining a supply of beer for his dinner unless he chose to take his dinner in the public-house, which he was sure no hon. Member desired to see him do. That was an important point upon which the Government should give the House their views. It seemed to him that it would be very harsh that persons who had no cellarage accommodation in their own houses should be compelled practically to forego liquor for their Sunday dinner by reason of this restriction. As the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out on the Committee stage, the restriction might lead to the risk of working men laying in a supply not of beer, but of spirits and other liquors which were more easily stored than beer, and using them before the time of the Sunday dinner. It was important from the national point of view that the people of England should not be encouraged to drink spirits instead of beer. He should have thought the Government would have been most anxious to arrive at a compromise on this matter by which a regular hour would have been indicated for the opening of licensed houses on Sunday morning in all districts. He thought the arrangement of having houses open from 12 to 1 in one district, 1 to 2 in another, and 2 to 3 in the third was open to all kinds of objections while furnishing no possible advantage. As to the second subsection, dealing with the bona fide traveller, he desired to put a direct question to the Government and the hon. Member for Appleby and his 1242 friends. It seemed to him that the clause was based on a false idea. He imagined that the original framers of the Act dealing with bona fide travellers had two objects in view: firstly, they laid down the proposition that a traveller was entitled to a preference over other members of the public; and secondly, that in order to define a traveller it must be laid down how far he had travelled. He wanted to know in what way this clause from the temperance point of view bettered the present position. Why was a man who walked six miles more entitled to alcoholic refreshment than another who had walked three miles? Why was the man who walked six miles less likely to abuse the privilege? For the sake of illustration he supposed that two persons set out from the City of Westminster to walk towards South London. The first gentleman stopped in the borough of Peckham, where everybody got drunk on election days and succeeded in evading the vigilance of the police, and the second gentleman walked on to Balham or Mitcham. These two men were not specially addicted to the abuse of alcoholic liquors. Did the Government think that the man who walked to Balham or Mitcham was less likely to get drunk than the man who stopped at Peckham? He should say that the man who walked the greater distance was more likely to be thirsty. The whole thing seemed to him to be absolutely absurd. He had heard no reason to show that this clause was likely to improve the position. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say it was not a very large alteration in the law and that it would not make much difference anyway. He regarded it as only another instance of the vexatious interference with the liberty of the subject which this Bill contemplated. In regard to Monmouthshire he would like some statement from the Government and from members of the temperance party representing Wales why it was necessary to include that county in the Welsh clause of the Bill. So far as he could gather from the figures there was less drunkenness in Monmouth than in the neighbouring county of Glamorgan, and he saw no reason why Monmouth should be included in the clause. It was perfectly true the Royal Commission desired to see the principle which had been put in 1243 force in Wales carried further and applied to the counties contiguous, but if they were going to do that there was no reason why they should not include Devonshire, Somersetshire, and other places. He had no doubt there was some reason for it, but he would like to ask the Government what was that reason. No doubt it would be said that the people of Monmouth were unanimously in favour of Sunday closing. But even if they were so, what was the reason for taking the county of Monmouth and making the law there different from what it was in the other counties of England? This was only another instance of the extraordinary things which the Government were anxious to do in order to please the extreme temperance party. He hoped that the House in discussing this clause would consider the actual effect of its provisions and not whether theoretically the restrictions on the opening of licensed premises on Sunday were good and desirable. If they were to discuss that, they on that side of the House would be compelled to take up the gauntlet thrown down, and go into the whole question of the facilities which existed elsewhere for Sunday drinking. He held that the House should consider the actual effect, the vexatious effect, which the proposals in the clause would have on the general public and the hardship which they would involve to members of the trade. The House should also consider the general effect which these proposals would have as part of a Bill, a large portion of the objects of which seemed to him, from the speeches which had been made both inside and outside the House, not to produce more temperance or less drinking, but to produce the maximum of annoyance to those persons in the country from whom the Party opposite disagreed.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 13, line 3, to leave out Clause 18."—(Sir Gilbert Parker.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'except,' in page 13, line 4, stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.)The 1244 noble Lord who has just addressed the House said that the provisions of the clause we are now discussing were more confusing and more muddling than any other clauses in the Bill. I do not admit that any clause in the Bill is confusing or muddling, and I say that this clause is neither the one nor the other. I will explain to the House in a few words what the clause really means. It consists of four provisions. In the first place it says that the hours of Sunday closing outside the Metropolis shall be reduced from six to three. That is fairly simple. In the next place, that the hours for Sunday closing in the Metropolis shall be reduced from seven to four. That is equally simple. Then next, the distance which a man may travel before he can call himself a bonafide traveller is increased from three to six miles. That is a simple arithmetical sum. The fourth provision is that the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act of 1881 shall extend to the county of Monmouth.
§ EARL WINTERTONI referred not to this particular clause, but to the general effect of the new regulations with regard to Sunday closing. That is what we have to consider.
§ SIR S. EVANSI understood that the argument of the noble Lord was that the clause was confusing and muddling. I quite see how he tries to bring in some other consideration in order to introduce confusion in the discussion of the clause. The hon. Member for Gravesend made a speech covering a great deal of the ground which may be covered in a general discussion on temperance reform and he expressed the hope that there wouldspring up such a discussion, because such a clause as this would not be efficacious if it was against the sense of the House and the country. I am not sure whether I am in order in following the hon. Member for Gravesend. Fifteen or sixteen years ago I was much more familiar with the strict rules of the debates of this House than I am now; but I have some recollection that there is a rule of procedure much more honoured in the breach than in the observance, that when the House was considering a Bill on the Report 1245 [...]ge, it was not supposed to know anything of what had taken place in Committee. That was a strict rule in the old [...]ays. I do not say it is obsolete; but it [...] more honoured in the breach than [...] the observance now. We had a remarkable discussion upon the provisions of this clause when in Committee. At that time the Metropolis was excluded from the operation of the clause altogether, for the reason that the Metropolis had always been differently dealt with, at least in degree, in this matter, from other portions of the country. But by reason of the most interesting discussions on the Committee stage, by reason, for instance, of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. and right hon Members, by reason of the expressions of opinion from all quarters of the House.—[OPPOSITION cries of "No,"]—he did not mean from all Members in the House, but from all quarters of the House—it was decided to extend the provision with regard to Sunday closing to London and restrict the hours for opening from seven to four while in the country the hours were reduced from six to three. This is not the time to discuss local option generally, although it was introduced into his speech by the hon. Member for Gravesend. He further introduced into his speech observations which would have been more pertinent to Clause 20. The question that arises on this clause is whether or not it is in the public interest to diminish the hours for merely drinking in bars in a public-house. I will only make a few observations upon it. I think that no one would now argue that we ought to go back to the time when there was no restriction at all with reference to drinking facilities either during weekdays or Sundays. It was ordained so far back as 1872 that the public-houses in populous places should be closed at eleven o'clock, in non-populous places at ten and in London at half-past twelve; and I make bold to say that never in the course of these debates and never in any discussions on the question of temperance has it been suggested that these restrictions have been productive of anything but good. No one would argue that we should go back to the time when public-houses could be open at any time in the morning or night. But with regard to Sunday 1246 closing the question of Sunday drinking is a most interesting one, looked at historically and politically. [OPPOSITION ironical cries of "Hear, hear."] Yes, most interesting. There has been from the first time when legislation was passed in regard to the matter, a larger restriction on Sunday than on other days of the week. I agree that that arose from a desire to obtain respect for the Sabbath. It would be entirely out of place for me to discuss here and now the Sabbath as a divine institution; but I myself am profoundly of opinion that, as a human institution, the Sabbath or Seventh day, is one which we should preserve, and that is at the bottom of these regulations with regard to Sunday closing. I say that not only in the interest of those people who go to a public-house merely to drink, but in the interest of the people who keep licensed houses. I speak of what I know. In my own district I say that the licensed victuallers, or, at any rate, the more respectable portion of the licensed victuallers, would not dream of going back to the days when there was no restriction of the hours of Sunday opening. If that be so, we say three hours in the country and four hours in London are quite sufficient for Sunday drinking. As to the working man getting his dinner-beer on Sunday mentioned by the noble Lord, I can only say that his dinner-beer car be got quite easily in one hour; and the reason why we made that hour elastic was to make it possible for the justices, who know the circumstances of the locality, to make it perfectly convenient for the working man to provide his fresh dinner-beer for consumption in his own house at the ordinary dinner hour of the locality. Let me deal with the question of Sunday closing more generally. It may be said that three hours opening are sufficient for the country, but that four hours are not sufficient in London. There was a recommendation in both the Majority and the Minority Reports of the Licensing Commission in favour of the restriction of the drinking hours on Sunday. Let me deal now, however, with the last portion of the clause as to Monmouthshire and Sunday closing. The noble Lord said that he had never heard of any reason why Monmouthshire should be included in the Sunday Closing Act 1247 for Wales of 1881. Now, we had a very interesting debate on this matter in which the four Members representing the four divisions of Monmouthshire and a fifth who represented a county borough—Newport—all spoke in favour of Sunday closing in Monmouthshire. I made a few observations myself on this matter, and I know Monmouthshire very well. The noble Lord said, "Why not include Herefordshire?" At one time Herefordshire was a Welsh county but not so Welsh as Monmouthshire, and the latter must always remain to all intents and purposes a Welsh county. It was formed for the first time in the reign of Henry VIII. out of the marshes or Monmouth and the position of Monmouth in regard to its contiguity to Wales and with regard to the beautiful river which flows through the country is the strongest geographical reason on both sides why Monmouthshire should have extended to it the benefits of the Sunday closing provision in Wales. I summed up on that occasion the reasons why Monmouthshire should be included, but I have not my notes with me. I think I said that for political, ethnological, historical, episcopal, geographical, and for every other reason that I knew of, Monmouth ought to be included. With regard to the operation of the Act in various parts of the country, we have the most extraordinary consensus of opinion. First of all, we had a remarkable speech from my right hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone near me with regard to the operation of the Sunday Closing Act in Ireland, now surely historical, which was most interesting and instructive. The measure for Sunday Closing covered the whole of Ireland, except the five most populous cities or towns, but that was only a temporary Bill. It was included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill every session. I think that went on for over twenty years and it was possible for anybody by merely raising his hat to exclude that Act from the operation of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which comes up every year for discussion. That Act which was passed only as a temporary measure was included in that Bill year by year for nearly twenty years, when it became with everybody's consent permanently the law of the land for 1248 the whole of Ireland. We had a markable speech from the Lord Advocate who justified Sunday closing Scotland, and we know that those of [...] who represent Wales, not only from our own experience are in favour of it, but we can point to the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh—a body which was called into being by those who at that time made it their business to attack Sunday closing—which is unanimous and is to the effect that the Sunday Closing Act has been beneficial in Wales, and that there ought to be no attempt to repeal it. Surely that being so, we can refer to other parts of this land, where Sunday closing has been put into operation, and we can say that it has worked for the good of the community, and as I have said, those who have experienced the benefits of it, who are engaged in the trade itself, would never dream of going back to the state of things which existed before the Acts came into force. We have put the restrictions in England and London on practically the same footing in regard to Sunday closing. It seems to be acknowledged that England and London are not prepared to vote for Sunday closing, but the principle is the same and I have discussed them generally in that way. The only other matter that remains for me to deal with is the question of the bona fide traveller. Upon this question we have the support of, I think, all the members of the Licensing Commission except two. We have the Report of the majority and the minority of the Commissioners upon it. In the one case, if I remember aright, the recommendation was that the three miles should be extended to six, and in the other it was that the three miles should be extended to seven. The noble Lord put some questions which would be very interesting if it were possible to discuss them, as to the possibility of a man getting more drunk after he had travelled six miles than after he had travelled three. I do not know how that is, but if I may go back for a moment to the question of Sunday closing, I think I may say that, generally speaking, if you open for six hours on Sunday instead of three, there is double the probability of a man's getting drunk. But in the case of the bona fide traveller 1249 [...]e is nothing logical in it at all. We [...]st deal with this matter practically.[...]ere is no difference logically between [...]o and a half miles and three and a half miles; there is no difference between we and a half miles and six and a half miles, but we must deal with this matter practically, and what was borne in upon the Commission, and what is known to every Member of this House, is that there are men who will travel for three miles for the purpose of getting drink; there are other persons who travel for six miles not for the purpose of getting drink, but who may desire refreshment when they get to that point of their journey. I say that underlying the Reports of both sets of Commissioners and this provision is the fact that you have in practice, as everybody well knows, actual mischief arising from the distance of three miles, and that you have people going three miles or three miles and a half for the purpose of getting drink. As a matter of law, if the law was strictly applied, the mere fact of a man's having travelled three miles does not entitle him to a drink at all; he does not thereby become a bona fide traveller; but in practice it is held that if a man has gone on his bicycle or legs or has travelled in any other way three miles, he probably is a bona fide traveller. In order to get rid of a practical mischief with which everybody is acquainted, therefore, it is desirable to extend the distance for which a man must have travelled before he is a bona fide traveller. A man may travel for six miles and if it is clear to the bench that he did it for the purpose of getting drink he is not a bona fide traveller at all. But if he travels six miles and he is bona fide in other respects he will be entitled under this law to be supplied. I have gone much more fully into this than I intended to do, but it is a very interesting subject. The change which is being made is not very much, but we think it is entirely wholesome and in the right direction, and I say that with regard to the fair, simple, clear, and unconfused provisions of the Bill, with regard to the reduction from six hours to three in the country, and from seven hours to four in London for ordinary drinking purposes, with regard to the extension of the distance now constituting a man a bona fide traveller, and particularly 1250 with regard to Sunday closing in Monmouthshire, I think it is the overwhelming desire of this House to give effect to those clauses, and that they should become portions of this measure.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.)said he had listened with that respect which was due to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General and to his justification of this clause, and at last they had it officially declared on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the justification for the Sunday closing portion of the clause was purely, absolutely, and wholly Sabbatarian. [Cries of "No."]
§ SIR S. EVANSWhat I said was that in a great measure the feeling underlying the measure was decidedly Sabbatarian, but I did not myself put it upon that ground. I put it upon the advisability as a human institution.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he understood the Solicitor-General to say that treating Sunday not necessarily as a divine but as a human institution, he strongly entertained the view (he presumed speaking for the Government) that it was necessary or desirable that all sections of the community should offer some special recognition of that day. The hon. and learned Gentleman I did not say one word beyond that in justification of this clause. He did not I dispute the proposition that on Sunday there was less drinking than on any other day of the week. He did not dispute that, but what he did say was that many of the arrests for drunkenness on Sunday were attributable to Saturday drinking. Of course they were.
§ SIR S. EVANSI did not say that.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEYapologised, but said the statement was certainly made in the course of the debate. The hon. Members for Spen Valley and for Appleby had said scores of times that they could not look at the figures of Sunday because they related to drinking on Saturday. But if it was a true criticism to say that, surely it was quite arguable and legitimate to say that the enormously greater drunkenness on Monday was due to the 1251 enforced closing on Sunday, and was it not true to say that the knowledge, as closing time on Saturday arrived, that there would be no opportunity of drinking till Monday, induced the regular drinker to lay in an extra stock of alcoholic liquor while he had the opportunity? So far as Sunday closing was concerned, he desired to remind the Government once more that he had asked many times in this discussion why was Sunday chosen for special treatment, apart from the Sabbatarian argument, which was out of date in the twentieth century. This House of Commons was surely not going to say that the view of one section of the community as to how any one day should be spent should be enforced upon other sections and upon all differing from that view. He said, openly and candidly, and with no sense of shame, that he saw no sanctity in the seventh day as distinguished from the sixth or any other day. He thought it was as much the duty of a man to be sober on Saturday as it was on Sunday and equally on Monday, and he saw no necessity for saying that there must be some extraordinary provision to keep men sober on one day of the week. He recognised no ecclesiastical argument in a secular assembly like the House of Commons. What argument had ever been adduced in favour of Sunday closing? There was not 50 per cent. of the amount of drink consumed on Sunday as on Monday and not 25 per cent. as compared with Saturday. Then why choose Sunday? Let the House look at statistics for drunkenness on Sunday, taking parts of the United Kingdom which were comparable. In England it was 50 per 1,000 of the population; in Scotland, where they had all the blessings of Sunday closing, it was .85 per 1,000; in Ireland the same and in Wales 1.15. There was no reason why they should have Sunday closing. The argument about rest for the employees was not maintainable. The employees had not asked for it, and when the Solicitor-General said he was concerned for the workers in the trade why was he not concerned for the railway workers on Sundays? Why should they work or why should other people? That argument was cant, and he did not withdraw or qualify that expression. On 1252 the temperance aspect there was [...] ground whatever for Sunday closing. He awaited an answer to his question as to why one particular day was selectd for special treatment. He was not going to Sweden or to other parts [...] the world for lessons. He was quite prepared to look at home, although he was prepared to argue that point with hon. Members at a more convenient opportunity than the present. Only that day he had received an immense amount of evidence from New Zealand showing the extraordinary trouble to which the police were put as the result of Sunday closing there. He had read in the police Court reports of the last few weeks of the terrible drunkenness in private drinking establishments in Cardiff. Apart from the Sabbatarian argument there was no justification at all for Sunday closing. He was told that all this solicitude was for the welfare of those engaged in the trade. He would remind the House that this sort of protection extended to those who did not ask for it was like the protection of the vulture which covered its prey before it devoured it. Another argument was that every piece of literature which came to Members of the House in regard to Sunday closing contained this Sabbatarian argument. He had letters from the Church Temperance Association and the Lord's Day Observance Association and other associations of that kind, and they all quite honestly proclaimed the fact that it was the better recognition of Sunday which concerned them, and they did not regard the matter from any other point of view. Then they had a memorial asking that whatever facilities were taken away from public-houses for supplying alcoholic liquors on a Sunday should be equally taken away from clubs and other unlicensed drinking premises. With regard to the provision of the Bill relating to Monmouthshire he was not qualified to say much. Everybody connected with Monmouthshire wanted to put the future difficulty further away from them than it was at present. The chief constable for Monmouthshire two or three years ago issued a report in which he said that Sunday closing in Wales had been a curse to Monmouth, and that it would be a sorry day for Monmouth when the 1253 provisions for Sunday closing were extended to that county. That vindicated the very argument of those who, like himself, were opposed to the kind of legislation as indicated by this subsection. All those people, to pass this evil on to their neighbours and give the benefit of this repressive legislation to somebody else over the border—
§ MR. T. F. RICHARDS (Wolverhampton, W.)Is that an evil?
§ MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he did not quite appreciate the interruption. The hon. Member, he believed, had the privilege of introducing a Sunday closing resolution, and he stated quite distinctly and honestly that his motive was almost entirely Sabbatarian because he said he believed temperance was a good thing, and therefore, he intended to do his best to introduce it into the House of Commons. [Cheers.] Those cheers were the best vindication of his argument that something other than temperance reform lay at the back of this subsection. What justification had the Solicitor-General for it? Had there been any real complaint prior to the introduction of this Bill that the bona fide traveller clause was being abused? The Solicitor-General had said there were a certain class of men who would go three miles to get a drink. Even if they stopped there he would say they well deserved it. But they had to go three miles back. But surely a man was not to be discouraged from a six miles walk simply because he might sandwich between the two halves of the walk a glass of ale or a whisky and soda. The effect of making it six miles would be to discourage a man taking that healthy exercise of a walk on Sunday. What man was going to start out on a twelve miles walk in order that he might get a drink? They talked about class legislation, but every man with a motor car or a horse and trap could go out and drink as much as he liked on a Sunday, whereas the poor man who took his wife and family out could not get any refreshment without going twelve miles. There was no justification for the clause, and no argument had been adduced by the Solicitor-General, who had simply glided over the whole 1254 clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not said why the Government had increased the distance to six miles. He had merely said that some Members of the Commission suggested five and some seven. What had that to do with it? It was convenient to quote the Royal Commission in some cases and not in others. This Bill said that the hours of Sunday closing in London should be reduced, but the Royal Commission held the contrary opinion. They were entirely against Sunday closing, but said if they curtailed the hours at all they should leave London and the other large cities untouched. The Solicitor-General did not quote the Royal Commission on points like those.
§ SIR S. EVANSBoth the Majority and the Minority Reports of the Royal Commission gave that figure. One gave six and another gave seven miles limit.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid his complaint was that the Solicitor-General had not told the House why the Government had extended the section. What abuse had there been by the bona fide traveller? The police had been hard enough on the publican who served a glass of beer to a man who had not come three miles. There had been many prosecutions under this clause, and he wished to know the reason for this fantastic legislation under which a man who took a walk on Sunday morning with his family could not get a glass of beer without going twelve miles. He was surprised to read in the Daily News yesterday morning a strong recommendation to its readers to spend from Friday to Tuesday in Paris. The Daily News with a special heading "Friday to Tuesday in Paris" pointed out the wonderful facilities which certain railway companies were now giving to such of its readers who cared to escape the effect of this Bill. What was the experience of the whole world during the recent Franco - British Exhibition? He had heard of the hundreds of persons in Paris who would have come here and contributed to the success of the exhibition but for our absurd sabbatarian views. They could not go to the exhibition on Sunday and could not enjoy reasonable recreation. Now even this great organ of the Nonconformist conscience told its 1255 readers that the only way to spend a decent Sunday after this Bill had become law was to take a Friday to Tuesday trip to Paris. There had been no serious justification for those oppressive provisions in the Bill. When the Prime Minister introduced the Bill and explained its main provisions they were never led to expect that it would be an omnibus measure with all these concessions to the extreme advocates of temperance reform. No case whatever had been made out for Sunday closing. The Home Secretary had quoted statistics to show that Sunday was the sober day of the whole week, but they had the statistics of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, which showed that there was no decrease in the amount of alcohol consumed through Sunday closing. There was just as much alcohol consumed per week as there was before Sunday closing came into operation, and if there was less consumed on Sunday it must follow that there was more consumed on Saturday and Monday. As far as the bona fide traveller was concerned the provision was absolutely grotesque, and he certainly hoped that if this clause could not be amended in the House of Commons it would meet with more reasonable consideration elsewhere.
§ * MR. HODGEsaid that in addition to the reasons advanced by the Solicitor-General as to why this clause should be extended to Monmouth he would like to advance one more, which was an industrial one. In the trade with which he was associated he found that in South Wales they had Sunday closing and the minimum of Sunday work, and for the last twenty years they had endeavoured to do away with Sunday work in England. But they had been told by the large employers of labour that they were afraid that if they acceded to that request while there was no Sunday closing in the country it would result in many of the workmen turning out to work in an unfit condition, a danger to themselves, their fellow workmen, and to the machinery of the firm. He hailed with extreme satisfaction the extension of Sunday closing to Monmouth for the reason that the large steel works there insisted upon their men starting at six o'clock on Sunday night, which would not be the 1256 case if Sunday closing were in operation. In fact one of the largest firms in Monmouthshire were under obligation to permit a start at midnight on Sunday so soon as the Sunday Closing Act was extended to Monmouthshire. The question had been asked if restriction led to less consumption of alcohol. His experience was that it did. If it did not, why did the great employers of labour limit the facilities for their workmen getting liquor? He had in his mind one of the largest steel concerns in the country, the Steel Company of Scotland, where at one time the men had the privilege of going out whenever they liked for the purpose of alcoholic refreshment. The privilege was abused by many of the workmen. A change in management caused an awakening to the fact; the new manager realised that this abuse was bad for the men and bad for the plant of the firm, and the general manager wrote to him asking whether he could suggest any means by which the privilege could be restricted without doing any injury to the men. He wrote and said he thought the only way in which the men could be prevented from going out just as they pleased and remaining out as long as they pleased was that when a man considered that he was in want of alcoholic refreshment he should get a written permit from the foreman. This at once prevented the abuse of the privilege, the result being an immense gain to the men, and also an immense gain so far as the work of the firm was concerned. Some time afterwards the general manager expressed his satisfaction at the great benefit which had been conferred as the result of that action. He could name numerous other instances of a similar character where restriction had led to lessened consumption of alcohol and to the benefit of all concerned. For the fact that the amount of Sunday labour would be lessened in the great steel industry, he welcomed the extension of Sunday closing to Monmouthshire, and his personal regret was that it had not been extended to England as well. He did not know what the case might be with other Members, but for himself he had placed before his constituents that he was a Sunday closer, and he was quite satisfied that if he went 1257 before them on a future occasion he would receive the same support as he had got on the last occasion. Some reference had been made to Scotland, and, having resided there for the greater part of his life, he was in a position to testify to the benefits which arose from Sunday closing. In the town of Motherwell with which he was acquainted, there were certain hotel licences. The licensing law in Scotland was slightly different from what it was in England. There were seven-day or hotel licences, and the consequence of Sunday closing was that a certain section of people travelled three miles, frequently further, to get to that town, whore they took advantage of the hotels, with the result that there was an enormous number of drunken people there on a Sunday. The magistrates, when they rose to a sense of their responsibility, took the seven-days licences completely away, with the result that they might travel through the town on a Sunday without seeing one drunken person. He thought that afforded evidence of the beneficial results which attended restriction. Something had also been said with respect to London, which, it was submitted, should not be interfered with. But those, who like himself, took an interest in mission work in some of the lower localities of the Metropolis, in slum districts, such as East Greenwich and Deptford, had only to spend a few hours in those parts on a Sunday to see the absolute necessity of something being done for the benefit of the people. He trusted that on a future occasion they would see the Sunday Closing Act extended, not only to Monmouth, but to the whole of England.
§ MR. FLETCHER (Hampstead)said he should have agreed with what the Solicitor-General had said in reference to restriction, if the Bill had provided that the money to effect that object should be derived from some other source than that proposed. Not one penny was to be paid by the State in furtherance of temperance by means of restriction. It was most unfair that they should diminish the brewers' and publicans' opportunities to earn their living at the same time that they increased the burdens put upon them. He lived in a most attractive locality, to which thousands of people 1258 came every Sunday. There was a well-known and well-conducted hotel there. All the time he had lived there he had never seen any rowdyism. The people who frequented the hotel were of the middle-class, and mostly foreigners, who ordered dinner to which they sat down after their walk. That form of taking pleasure was attended with no bad results. This clause would operate most unfairly on the hotel in question, which did more business on the Saturday and Sunday afternoon than during the whole of the rest of the week. The clause would not only be unjust to the hotel-keepers, but it would be a source of extreme inconvenience to the many visitors and the people who lived in the locality. Indeed, he did not think a more inconvenient clause could have been framed. He could speak of other and similar localities about twenty miles from London where on Saturdays and Sundays the people were all bona fide travellers. They did not go merely to drink; they visited those places for the purposes of enjoying the neighbourhood. They were mostly foreigners, who, they knew, were infinitely more temperate than the Anglo-Saxon. The Government had adopted the most inconvenient arrangement. It would have been far better to fix the hours of opening. It would be extremely difficult for a respectable working man to get his beer on a Sunday, unless the justices fixed the hour of opening at between twelve and one; but what was to happen to the bona fide traveller who arrived at a quarter past one?
§ SIR S. EVANSThere is no change whatever in the hours as regards the bona fide traveller. The hours at present fixed are applicable to the bona fide traveller. It is only a question of distance, that is all.
§ MR. FLETCHERAs long as no one is prejudiced.
§ SIR S. EVANSNot at all.
§ MR. FLETCHERsaid that that removed the part of his argument with which he had been dealing. He had only risen to point out the serious injustice of making the licensing trade pay increased compensation at the same time that they 1259 diminished their power of making a profit. He was in favour of the argument of the Solicitor-General about the restriction of hours on Sunday, if the right people paid for their temperance views. It would be far more just that those who were merely a minority should pay the compensation rather than members of the trade whose earning powers were interfered with.
§ * MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)said the hon. Member for Hackney had delivered a very able and closely reasoned speech, but he trusted the hon. Gentleman was wrong in thinking that Sabbatarian feeling was dead in this country. He thought the hon. Member was wrong, and he was glad of it.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he did not say that the Sabbatarian feeling was dead, but that it was declining.
§ * MR. REESsaid he understood the hon. Gentleman also to have said that it did not become the House of Commons, representatives of the nation, to deal with that aspect of the case. The Continental Sunday was contrasted by the hon. Gentleman with the English Sunday. He did not mean to say that he had any personal feeling in the matter, but the Continental Sunday was the outcome of what a great historian described as "a gorgeous and Imperial superstition." He was not concerned to justify that description, and equally unable to criticise it, but it might fairly be said, in Wales at any rate, that Sunday and the way in which it was observed, if he might use the antithesis, was a democratic exposition of Free Church feeling, which he thought it would be very wrong in any Member from Wales to ignore. There could be no doubt the feeling in Wales in favour of Sunday closing and Sunday observance was very strong, and as one of its representatives, he took the opportunity of saying so. The noble Lord who seconded the Motion for the omission of the clause described Monmouthshire as an unfortunate county. That was a most unfortunate description. Monmouthshire was in the position of a small county which was wooed by two great neighbouring countries, and which 1260 was a fine example of fidelity in that it clung to the smaller and, poorer, but dearer and older love. His revered leader, the Member for Glamorganshire, when he had previously said a word or two on this subject, had taken him to task and gently rebuked him afterwards for not having pointed out that he himself was a Monmouthshire man. He therefore took the earliest opportunity of saying that he himself had taken the earliest opportunity that offered of acquiring that qualification. There was high authority for saying that to be born in a stable did not make a man a horse, but the House might take it from him that to be born in Monmouthshire did make a man a Welshman. He did not make any general attack on the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend, but he did not understand what the hon. Gentleman said about their being afraid having a bad case against Sunday closing, nor did he think the hon. Member was happy in his dealing with the reports and statistics. In 1890, the Royal Commission on Welsh Sunday Closing recommended that the Act should be retained, strengthened, and extended to Monmouthshire. In 1899, the Royal Commission had reported favourably on Sunday closing in Scotland. Ireland and Wales, and recommended the extension of the Act to Monmouthshire, and to reduce the hours of sale in England. Again, the convictions for Sunday drunkenness were compared. In Cardiff, in 1881, the year before the Act, there were sixty-two convictions for a population of 80,000. Under Sunday closing the average per year for eight years ending December, 1907, was only eight, the population being 164,000. In comparing Cardiff, which had Sunday closing, with Newport, which had not Sunday closing, they had in the case of Cardiff, with a population of 187,000, 6 convictions, being 3 per 100,000; and in the case of Newport, with out Sunday opening, and with a population of 75,000, they had 42 convictions, being 56 per 100,000. Therefore, the figures were strongly adverse to the case of his hon. friend, and strongly supported the case for Sunday closing, and its extension to Monmouthshire, which was his most important point. The 1261 hon. Member for Hackney had quoted one extract from one report of one chief constable, but it was usual in all political and statistical controversies to use just that one extract which suited one's purpose for the moment. He did not think the hon. Member would find in a succession of reports by chief constables of Monmouthshire anything to support his theory. They could always get one text to support almost any proposition. He was amazed the other day when an hon. Member threw at him a text from Solomon, whom he should never put forward as a temperance reformer. He quoted—
Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and who is deceived thereby is not wise.But it was the same Solomon who said—I have drunk my wine with my milk—not by the way so very curious a combination as might appear to hon. Members, because he learned that the production of milk was very much dependent on the consumption of beer, because brewers' grains were the chief food of milch cows, and if there was not enough beer consumed there would not be enough grains to keep the cows to produce the milk to keep up the supply of temperance people. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham had got hold of the figures for Glamorganshire. The population of that county was more than half the population of Wales, but if they were to differentiate between the nationalities of the different persons who were convicted of drunkenness, they would see that a large majority were not Welshmen, but strangers from England, Scotland, and Ireland and other foreign countries. The fact was well-known, and he hoped there would in future be some differentiation shown in order that this specious and plausible, but not tenable argument should not be brought forward against the well - known sobriety of Wales. The hon. Member also asked why Herefordshire and Shropshire were not equally entitled to be brought under this Act on the same ground as Monmouthshire. The connection between Monmouthshire and Wales however was of long standing. He had sometimes thought that in regard to Shropshire and part of his 1262 own constituency there was a close and intimate tie, and that certain people in Montgomeryshire might have been satisfied to be Salopians, if they had not attained the greater glory of being Welsh, but in regard to Wales and Monmouthshire the tie was of such a character that he did not believe anybody who was familiar with the subject would dream of claiming the same connection between any other county of England that there was between Monmouthshire and Wales. His own appreciation of Monmouthshire men extended to Monmouthshire landlords. The hon. and gallant Member for South Monmouthshire must have blushed when he criticised the class to which he belonged, but they had not been obstructed in the working of the Sunday closing sections in any part of Wales by the landlords, and they would not be in Monmouthshire. He believed indeed they would give a helping hand as the landlords of Wales had done. As to the six and three mile question, the hon. Member for Hackney had made the very obvious criticism that rich men would walk or motor round the section with the greatest ease, while the poor man could not. That was quite true and must apply to most sections of most Acts. The idea that any legislation would get round that difficulty was extremely hard to believe, nor could Labour Members who asked for special privileges for suffragettes in gaol desire to abolish class legislation. It seemed to him that there was some merit in having a six-mile limit—in fact he really agreed with the hon. Member for South Hackney. He thought it placed the man who had that Sunday walk which was so good for him on a superior footing to the mere saunterer who went out three miles, and for his part he would support the clause on that ground and not because he believed there was any very great harm in a man who had walked three miles getting a drink. But they must look at the clause rather in its rural aspect. They were not to consider Peckham and Balham and places like that so much as small country places where if there was a public-house three miles away from the town anyone could go there to drink, and many of the able-bodied population went. That was what this extension was intended to meet, and surely it was a 1263 proper provision which might fairly be supported, and approved upon the grounds put forward by the hon. Member for Hackney. His last word was that it was absolutely impossible to separate Monmouthshire from Wales.
§ MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)said he ventured as a mere Englishman to intervene in the debate which was rapidly becoming merely a question of the treatment of one corner—he admitted a very distinguished corner—of the United Kingdom. He thought the last speaker would have been more convincing if instead of merely reading out a list of convictions for Sunday drunkenness he had been able to convince them that not only were there fewer convictions for drunkenness on Sunday, but also that the whole amount of drunkenness had materially diminished. The hon. Member might speak for his own part of the country, but he was not entitled to speak for England, and to describe as a normal condition such a state of things as this, that if a public-house in a rural district was open within three miles the whole able-bodied population walked off to drink.
§ MR. LANE-FOXsaid even the conception that that sort of thing might be the result showed how absolutely necessary it must be for his own part of the country to have the Sunday closing they had now got. But until something of that sort came more within the region of possibility in England they would be better advised to maintain the system they had at present. The Solicitor-General said the clause was simple. It was no doubt simple compared with many of the drafting efforts of the Government in this and other measures. But when they took it in connection with the other clauses recently adopted by the Government the whole position was altered. He would not go so far as to say that the Sabbatarian argument in the country or in that House was out of date, but to his mind there was only one possible argument in favour of Sunday closing and that was that it saved Sunday labour to people who badly needed it. If he 1264 were convinced that this clause was going materially to save Sunday labour it would be a strong argument for voting for it, but he failed to find there was a great decrease in Sunday labour under the Bill. There was no reason why a man should have any more right to get drunk on a week-day than on a Sunday, and in that respect there was no difference between Sunday and any other day. He did not know what other sound argument there could be for Sunday closing except the question of the day of rest. But what was going to happen? Under the new clause public-houses would have to be open through the whole of Sunday.
§ SIR S. EVANSI must protest against that. Nothing of the sort. What we said was that no one need open his door. If he does open his door for the supply of meals only he is not guilty of an offence, but he can keep his door closed every hour and every minute of the day.
§ MR. LANE-FOXsaid that if that was the position the Government were putting a very serious temptation in the way of inn-keepers to subject their employees to Sunday labour. It was only a matter of time and they would have all the evasions connected with this meal which were practised in other countries. He heard of a case the other day in which cheese cakes were made of plaster-of-Paris and handed round as a meal which the man who wished to have a drink was supposed to be enjoying. That went on satisfactorily for a time until one day a customer broke his tooth, and the inn-keeper had to pay compensation for damage. There was a very great reason for voting against the clause, in the fact that it was absolutely inoperative in preventing the very form of Sunday drunkenness which was very common and which was doing most harm—the question of the Sunday tripper who came in a cab. This Bill did nothing to prevent secret drinking in clubs. One hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency had spoken of the great evils which sprang upon Wales after Sunday closing was put into operation owing to the creation of drinking clubs. It was all very well for the hon. Member 1265 for Montgomery to tell the House that they were strangers who came into Wales to get drunk. The point they had to consider was that if they passed the Bill in its present form, and made it impossible for a man with a certain amount of means to obtain alcohol whilst the rich could get all they required, the result would be an enormous increase in the number of secret drinking clubs. For those reasons he was not prepared to support the clause.
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Glamorganshire, Rhondda)claimed that the majority of the working men's representatives in the House were in favour of Sunday closing not only in Wales and Monmouth but all over the country. That was because many of them, to quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition, had lived among the working classes and knew what they felt on this subject, and they, therefore, supported Sunday closing for the sake of the men they represented. He was speaking for Rhondda, and he claimed to know what they wanted better than any other man in that House. Some of them might say the "Old Man" was rather hard on them in asking for public-houses to be closed on Sundays, but he was sure that when on Monday morning they tried to rise to go to work and failed because of a bad head, they would say that the "Old Man" was right after all. Sunday was the only day of rest for the miners, the only day when they were not in the colliery, and he wanted them to spend their time at home with their families. He could draw pictures of the difference between the face of the Welsh valleys years ago and now. He represented a valley fourteen miles long. They talked about absentee landlordism in Ireland, there was a good deal of it in Wales. He spoke of things as they were, and he and his friends were pressing this matter in order to secure the comfort of the families of the men. There was no doubt that men lost more work on Monday than on any other day of the week. Three-fourths of these men were drunkards, and fond of drink, and if they increased the temptation for them to drink they would do so. He only wanted to place before the House what he knew. 1266 He was not speaking from the point of view of what hon. Members opposite called fanatics, nor even from the point of view of teetotalers; he was merely regarding the matter from the standpoint of the benefit of the men he represented.
§ EARL WINTERTONWhere do they get their drink now?
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMWell, close your clubs. If he had the opportunity of closing them he would. But that did not affect his argument. The man left his family; instead of taking his Sunday dinner at home with them, he went and got drunk; he lost Monday, and his ability to earn money was not as great on Tuesday as it should be, and it was Wednesday before the collieries were full again. The men who were losing work were the men who had a taste for drink. Reduce the temptation to these men to drink and they would extend their opportunities of increasing their earning power and of bringing in more wages for their families' enjoyment. He appealed to the House upon that point and that point alone to do what it could to remove this evil of temptation. He remembered his old mother being much put about on one occasion because the cat ate the candles. His sister came in, and when the old woman told her about the cat, she said: "Hang them up under the ceiling;" the cat could not get up there, and the candles were safe. The House should act similarly in removing the temptation to drink. He appealed to the House, if it could not see its way to decrease the facilities for drinking, not to increase them. If hon. Members wanted to see people sober and attentive to their work, if they wished to see them enjoying increased comfort in the bosom of their families, if they wished to make the country sober and peaceful, let them help to do away with the whole paraphernalia of drink-selling on Sunday.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)said everyone agreed with the hon. Member as to the evils arising from drunkenness, and everyone desired that 1267 working men and others should keep sober not only on Sunday but on the other days of the week. No one shared that desire in a greater degree than himself. He recognised the sincerity of the hon. Member for Rhondda, but the difference between them was that he did not think this Bill would promote the object which the hon. Member desired. He did not think the hon. Member believed it would do so.
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMI believe with all my soul that it will.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member had admitted that the evil of drunkenness was intensified by clubs, and, replying to an interruption, he said he would close them all. The Bill did not close them, and it was for that reason he advanced the argument that the hon. Member would go very much further than the Bill. The hon. Member wanted total prohibition. Total prohibition to a certain extent would be a remedy. The cat that could not get the candle could not eat it, and so the man who could not get drink would not be able to get drunk. This Bill did not propose total prohibition. The question they were now discussing was whether licensed premises should be closed for a certain number of hours on Sunday. It was perfectly open for those who could not get beer at the time they wanted to buy it on Sunday to buy a bottle of whisky and take it home and drink it in their own house. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent that. The Solicitor-General had said that on the Committee stage the Government come to the conclusion from speeches made that it was the desire of Members in all parts of the House that London should be included in this clause. He wished to point out that there was no time for all the Members interested in London to speak. He supposed that the Government, having brought forward the clause exempting London, would stick to their guns. He thought the Government had brought forward the clause after due consideration, and that there was no need for any London Member to get up to support them on the matter. He was encouraged in that belief by a speech made by the Lord Advocate, or some other member of the Government, 1268 in which strong reasons were given why London should be exempted.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELThe Lord-Advocate invited the opinions of the Committee.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had not Hansard, with him, but if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the reports of the debates he would find that a member of the Government made a speech in defence of the exemption of London from the clause. It was near the close of a debate that the Government announced their intention of making an alteration in the clause so as to include London. He was in the lobby at the time, and a friend came to him and said this alteration was going to be made. He had not time to make any protest on behalf of the City of London, which he had the honour to represent. It was quite true that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said he could not vote for the clause unless London was included. He thought that in saying so his hon. friend made a mistake. The real conclusion which the Government should have deduced from that statement of his hon. friend was that there should be no alteration in the law at all. Sevenoaks would then have been in the same position as London in this matter. It was perfectly well known that the Royal Commission advocated the exemption of London, and the reason, of course, was evident to everyone. London was the centre of a great Empire, and it was absolutely necessary that foreigners should be attracted into the country. When they came here they should be allowed to enjoy themselves innocently, just as Englishmen did when they wont to Paris and other parts of the world. That was the reason, he presumed, why the Royal Commission exempted London. He would be glad to hear from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department why the Government had thrown, over the Royal Commission on this particular subject. In regard to the shortening of the hours in the country generally, he maintained that no reason had been advanced for it. The Solicitor-General did not give a single instance in which it had been proved that by 1269 shortening the hours for the sale of drink on Sunday any improvement had resulted.
§ SIR S. EVANSI stated, rightly or wrongly—I think rightly—that general experience pointed to the conclusion that the restriction of the hours for selling drink had been a good thing.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that that was the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he had not brought forward any statistics to bear it out. Reference had been made to the good results attending Sunday closing in Ireland, but he would point out that there was a great difference between England and Ireland in this matter. The people of England drank beer, but the people of Ireland drank whisky. It was no hardship to the people of Ireland to close public-houses on Sunday, because they could buy whiskey in bottles and take it home. In England a man could not buy a barrel of beer and take it home, and, therefore, if he wanted a glass of beer he should be able to obtain it when he wanted it. Instead of having the effect of promoting temperance the clause would probably have the effect of causing beer drinkers to buy whisky to take to their homes for consumption on Sunday. The probability was that a man who did that would not go out on Sunday until he had finished the bottle of whisky. He would like the Solicitor-General to give the general statistics in regard to drunkenness in Ireland. He believed that these statistics showed that drunkenness in Ireland was as great as in England. If the proportion was the same, what became of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument as to the good effects of Sunday closing in Ireland? Supposing for the sake of argument that the people of Ireland were made sober on Sunday but more drunken on Monday, what was the advantage of that? What they wanted to do was to make the people sober altogether. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made the startling statement that the Sunday Closing Act was included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that if anyone objected to it he could have prevented its passing by raising his hat. It was news to him that an Act could be struck out 1270 of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill by a Member's raising his hat. They knew perfectly well that they could do nothing of the sort. It was the hardest thing possible to get a law repealed unless the Government of the day did it, and it was sometimes difficult for them to do it. As regarded the question of Sunday closing in Monmouthshire, the hon. Gentleman told the House that Monmouth was divided from England by a beautiful river boundary and that the geographical reasons for including it in Wales were excellent. But why should a man be less sober or more drunken because he lived on the one side or the other of a beautiful river boundary? There was no logical conclusion to be drawn from that, and he could not see that there was anything at all in the argument. The Solicitor-General said that all the Members for Monmouthshire were in favour of Sunday closing. Of course they were, because they were returned by temperance people and temperance voters; but that was no argument that the whole of the people in the county were in favour of it too. As to the bona fide traveller part of the clause, he had not heard a single argument advanced by any speaker which went to show that the distance should be extended to six miles. He believed that this was an arrangement of the great democratic party in the State which would do harm to the poor but no harm to the rich. This great democratic party, which said that they were all in favour of the poor, allowed the rich man with his motor car or his carriage and pair to drive seven or eight miles for his refreshment, but compelled the poor man to walk twelve miles—six miles out and six miles back—for his. That was rather hard on the working man. He failed to see what earthly reason could be advanced by any temperance advocate—even by the right hon. Member for South Tyrone, who carried temperance on his face—in favour of this subsection. Could the right hon. Gentleman get up and give a reason why a walk of six miles was more likely to make a man sober than a walk of three miles—and if the greatest temperance orator in the House could show no reason for the extension of the distance from three to six miles, nobody else could do it. The 1271 fact was that there was a sort of idea about that if the limit was put very far people would not walk the distance. As a rule, if a man walked three miles on a hot Sunday afternoon he felt the need of a whisky and soda or a glass of beer. This was grandmotherly legislation run mad; and if it went on they would soon have legislation proposed to prevent a man going out for a walk of more than half a mile on a wet afternoon in case he caught a cold. He maintained that it was absolutely ludicrous for Parliament to go on with this kind of legislation when so many other more important social reforms were wanted. He hoped the House would reject the clause.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELThis clause was discussed in Committee the whole of one day, and the speeches made to-day have not been dissimilar from those made against the clause on that occasion. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] Indeed, I do not know what is the object of this prolonged debate on the clause as a whole, unless it is to prevent the House reaching the various Amendments which are on the Paper. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!" and an HON. MEMBER: Your own side insisted in debating it."] But there is this difference from the previous debate, that in Committee we were favoured with no fewer than five speeches from the front Opposition bench, while to-day no right hon. Gentleman has risen from that quarter to address us. We then had a speech from the Leader of the Opposition which, the House will remember, was very sympathetic, couched in lofty tones, and by no means hostile to the clause as a whole, and it was followed by the striking fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not go into the lobby against the clause in the division, although he could not bring himself to vote in favour of any clause of this Bill. Then we had a speech from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer strongly in favour of the clause, and followed by a vote in the lobby in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University also spoke and voted for it, while the Member for Sevenoaks, speaking from the front Opposition bench, criticised it in that it did not go far enough, and urged its extension to the Metropolis.
1272 Only one, the right hon. Member for Bordesley, denounced the clause and voted against it. It is painful to see the disunion on this matter in the ranks of hon. Members opposite. When the clause first came before the House we heard all these speeches from the leaders of the party in favour, or in sympathy with its principle; to-day not one speech on I those lines has been made from the front Opposition bench, but the Opposition rank and file have been allowed to give full vent to their dislike of this part of the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham complained that the proposals of the Government regarding Sunday closing will throw the law into confusion. The other day the Member for York, who now cheers that remark, painted a picture of himself taking advantage of the various provisions of the law in order to remain in a London restaurant on Sunday and, by a judicious alternation of meals with alcohol and alcohol without meals, being enabled continuously to consume intoxicating liquors from midday until late at night, to be followed throughout the small hours of the morning by an orgie of soda water. The position of the law will be exceedingly simple, and will not give rise to confusion. The hours during which alcohol may be served with meals will be precisely the same as now. The law with respect to the sale of nonalcoholic liquors will be the same as now. The only alteration will be that the sale of alcohol without meals is reduced outside the Metropolis from six hours to three, and in London from seven hours to four. That, surely, is a proposition which ought not to tax the intellect of any person inside or outside the House. Hon. Members complain of the clause because they say it will be useless land will give rise to evasion, and in support of that they quote the case of Wales. The answer to that has been given by the hon. Member for South Hackney, who quoted the chief constable of Monmouthshire as saying that Sunday closing in Wales was the curse of Monmouthshire, because people flocked over the border to get drink. Why is it a curse to Monmouth if it is not that the people have to flock over the border to get the drink because they cannot get it in Wales? That completely answers the contention that Sunday closing in Wales 1273 cannot be enforced. Then we are told that if drinking clubs are allowed to remain open, the Sunday closing provisions with regard to public-houses will be useless. An hon. Member said, "Why not close the drinking clubs?" Undoubtedly they will be. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.] It is the desire of the Government, and the provisions of this Bill will prevent drinking clubs remaining open. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] I say that under this Bill no club which is a drinking club can survive. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] That is unquestionably the purpose of the Government, and it will be the effect of the law. The club can and will be struck off the roll, and we have provided a system of inspection by which we can detect which clubs come within that category. Some evasion of Sunday closing laws there may be, as there is under any restrictive law. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the evasion is the thing which is of importance, and that the intemperance which occurs under the existing law is of no importance. They say: "Let 100 men get drunk now with full facilities, it is an evil no doubt, but one with which we must bear; but if you restrict the sale of liquor and if in spite of restrictions ten men get drunk, that is a monstrous and intolerable abuse." Let us view these things in their due proportion. It will be seen that even if there is some slight evasion the good that is done by measures of this character will far outweigh the evil. The hon. Member for Hampstead says the clause might be acceptable if only we would pay compensation to the publicans whose business is restricted. Parliament has never adopted that course. We have had legislation for centuries restricting the hours of sale on week-days and the sale on Sundays, and never in a single instance have the restrictions been accompanied by any measure of compensation. When Sunday closing has been put into operation in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, no compensation has been given to the publican. Nor has any compensation been given for the shortening of the hours on which the public-houses are open for the sale of drink, and to attempt now to give compensation would 1274 be to depart from all precedents in regard to measures of this kind. We are challenged to say what reason of substance there is for extending the limit of the bona fide traveller from three miles to six. The reason is, because in our view the person who goes only three miles does not conform to the definition of bona fide traveller at all. A person who only goes three miles, especially in these days of trams and bicycles, is not thereby constituted a bona fide traveller. It is only by requiring a longer distance that you come to the class of persons who can properly be included in that category. I would point out to the noble Lord and to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that if this is absurd, grandmotherly legislation with no possible justification, they ought to be required to show why the majority of the Royal Commission, containing eight members of the liquor trade, signed recommendations analogous to our proposals. It is true that two of these representatives of the liquor trade dissented from all the Sunday closing proposals, and two others to the proposals as to hours alone, but as to the rest the majority of the Commission appended their signatures, The Majority Report says—
There is a strong local desire in Monmouthshire to be associated with Wales in the matter of Sunday closing.And perhaps I may interpose here and say that it is not only the Radical members for Monmouthshire who are in favour of this proposal, but the county council and the councils of the neighbouring counties. The Commission go on—We consider that this wish should be acceded to, especially as regards urban districts situated near the border. An important object is to get a border line where there is a sparse population, so that the special difficulties inseparable from the existence of different laws in adjoining localities may be reduced to the smallest compass.Then in regard to Sunday hours of opening in England, the Commissioners say—To enact complete Sunday closing throughout England would be, in our judgment, at the present time, a step too far in advance of public opinion. We are, however, prepared to recommend the further curtailment of the hours of opening to two hours at mid-day and two hours in the evening as a maximum. It would be advisable to leave London and the principal cities outside of the operation, at least for a time.1275 We have departed from the recommendation as to London by reducing the hours from seven hours to four. Then as to the bona fide traveller the Commissioners go on—We consider that a limited number of licensed premises where travellers may be served at specified hours should be selected by the licensing authority, and that a special licence duty should be exacted in respect of this privilege. The statutory distance might be extended to six miles.To all of those recommendations we have the signature of the majority of the Commission, with the exception of two members of the liquor trade and two other members of the liquor trade who dissented from the recommendation as to hours. But more important than those members who dissented, and carrying more weight in this House, is the assenting signature of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, who was a Royal Commissioner, who has taken a very active part in these discussions, and who, speaking with great knowledge on the subject, always commands the respect and attention of this House. He unfortunately is absent from our deliberations this afternoon, when this subject is under discussion, and strangely enough did not vote on this clause when it came on before. I am sorry he was not here in order that he might listen to the hon. Baronet for the City of London, denouncing the recommendation standing over his signature as "ridiculous grandmotherly legislation gone mad." If restrictions are of no use, and Sunday closing is preposterous and can only lead to evasion, why did the Royal Commission make the recommendations which I have quoted? My last point is this: the hon. Member who represents South Hackney has alluded to the Continent. He said there is an example to be followed. Do not look at Wales or Scotland or Ireland; go to France for a model, and follow their arrangements on Sunday.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEYI did not say that, but I say it now.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELIf I did not correctly represent what the hon. Member stated, at all events I represented what he thinks. That was at all events the purport of his argument. It is a 1276 remarkable fact that on the Continent at the present time the movement is all the other way. The last time I was in France I saw at Nice posters calling upon working men to attend a meeting in favour of "La Semaine Anglaise." They are anxious to give greater leisure to their workers.
§ MR. REMNANT (Finsbury, Holborn)Including the police?
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELIt would be far easier to give a weekly day of rest to the police if the public-houses were closed on Sundays. The Continent is becoming more anxious to secure on Sundays greater leisure for their workers and more repose to the community at large. It has been declared by Commission after Commission, Committee after Committee, that Sunday closing of public-houses is beneficial where is has been tried, and remembering that in the Committee stage this clause was confirmed by a majority of four to one, and received the approval of the majority of right hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the opposite front bench, I hope the House will not hesitate on this occasion to reaffirm that decision.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)said it had been objected on their side that it was useless to shorten Sunday hours so long as clubs remained open, and the Under-Secretary said that under their legislation drinking clubs would not remain open. He thought that was a very fine distinction Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that it would be possible for members of clubs, when this Bill was in operation, to get drink between eleven and twelve? If he did so, he ventured to say the distinction between a drinking club and a club in which drink could be obtained was so very fine and nice that it could only be characterised as sophistical. Upon the whole controversy between the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for South Hackney he was bound to say he found himself for once in agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman rather than with the hon. Member for South Hackney. He recognised that whether they took Sunday as an institution of divine or human origin, there must be some distinction 1277 between the hours of Sunday and weekday. That distinction had to be drawn in relation to the licensing trade as well as other businesses. He was bound to say that he was concerned, not so much with what happened during the hours in which the public-houses were open as during the hours in which they were nominally closed, and he must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government adhered to their view of the law stated on Friday last, that from one minute past twelve in the night to one minute to twelve on the following night, these premises might be open the whole of the day and night for the supply of refreshments, provided that during certain of those hours the refreshment supplied should not be of an alcoholic character. If they adhered to that view he did not know whether the Government had considered the position of ordinary refreshment houses. They would be placed at a disadvantage, as they were bound under the 11th Section of the Licensing Act of 1874, to close during the hours that public-houses were closed for the sale of intoxicating liquors. If the Government were right they had this extraordinary position, that premises on which alcohol was sold at certain times could be open at any hour of the day or night, and ordinary refreshment houses had to be closed at certain hours. He was told that the answer was that during the hours in which non-intoxicants were supplied the public-houses became refreshment houses, but he could find no legal warrant for that, because the definition of the latter referred to houses, shops, rooms or buildings, open for public entertainment—not being licensed for the sale of wine, etc. Therefore, they would have this position, and it seemed an extraordinary one to be brought about by a temperance Bill, that publicans would be induced to keep open nominally for the sale of non-intoxicants and food after closing hours but refreshment houses would be placed under a serious disability.
§ * SIR J. JARDINE (Roxburghshire)said that the general sense of Scotland was that the Act passed about fifty years ago for Sunday closing had been a great blessing to the country, and there certainly was no class in Scotland that 1278 would like to see licensed houses open on Sunday. The general feeling was that the rest which the statute afforded was a great boon to the inn-keepers and publicans and their servants. It was almost impossible to conceive a Scottish brewer or distiller proposing that public-houses north of the Tweed should be open on the Sabbath; not that they loved their whisky less, but they loved Scotland more. Patriotic feeling and long experience confirmed their view. After listening to the hon. Member for South Hackney he wished to endorse the opinion of the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the extreme difference in the sentiment of the people towards Sunday and every other day of the week. He did not think it fair in discussing the Lord's Day and the traditional reverence with which religion had clothed it to use words like Sabbatarian implying something contemptuous or wrong. Presbyterians, Puritans, and Episcopalians agreed in this feeling. In England, Wales, Soot-land and Ireland, for century after century Sunday had been considered different from other days. If they were setting up a new Utopia would they propose that that day should be given to drink? He was sure they would not, and when they had a great reform like this before them, backed up by the figures and advice of all the Royal Commissions they had before them very strong arguments for cutting down the hours of Sunday drinking.
§ * MR. GEORGE ROBERTS (Norwich)said he took a slightly different view on this question from that held by a number of those with whom he was associated. In Committee he voted against the principle of this clause and he intended to be consistent and to vote for the Amendment before the House. He repudiated any allegation of being less desirous to promote temperance reform than the most zealous temperance reformer in the House, but he had never subscribed to the principle that a glass of beer on a Sunday was worse than a glass of beer any other day. Nor had he subscribed to the sabbatarian view, because he thought that all the days of the year should be regarded as the Lord's days. 1279 His view was that the restrictions already in existence adequately sufficed to meet the question of temperance reform. Excessive drinking on any day of the week was to be deprecated. It militated against the worth of the workman as a workman and depreciated him as a citizen generally. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that Parliament would have better spent its time in measures of another character than on a Bill of such complicated dimensions as the one on which they were engaged. He thought some of his friends approached this problem of temperance from the wrong standpoint. Drink was not always the tempter. It was often a monotonous life and sordid environment that sent people to drink. He thought this Parliamentary time would have been much better employed had it been devoted to measures which would have been more efficacious in finding an abiding solution of the unemployment problem and the improvement of the housing and general conditions of the people. He confessed that he himself, if he were compelled to live in some of the dwellings with which he was familiar, might go to the public-house and lay himself open to the strictures of the temperance reformers. With regard to the great solicitude for the workers of this particular trade he could not conceive that any provision of the Bill was going to restrict the hours of labour. The modifications made by the Government, in response to the demand to meet the case of London and other large centres, and their declaratory clause, proved that there was still a danger that the employees in this trade would be called upon to work excessive hours. The only abiding method of solving this problem was by generally restricting the hours of labour, not only in this but in other trades. When that problem came to be dealt with he sincerely hoped it would receive the support of those who were so strongly in favour of restricting the hours of the employees of this trade. He hoped that people in future would spend more time with their families. There was a growing disposition on the part of the workmen to take their wives and children out on a Sunday, and he did not think that Parliament would be 1280 justified in forcing people into a particular groove. Men could worship God as well in a country lane as in a conventicle. He had been enormously impressed with the fact that Continental workmen made a speciality on Sundays of taking their wives and families, out with them to enjoy the Sunday in a rational fashion, and he believed it was not beyond possibility that the people in this country would do likewise. He did not believe that the six-mile limit would be very effective: given the desire to drink, and the means of purchasing it, he believed people would be able to overcome the difficulty of the extra three miles. As a temperance reformer, he looked for reform to come from within rather than from restrictive conditions applied from without. He could see a great improvement taking place in the lives of the working people, and he believed the surest way of temperance reform lay in giving the people certain employment and good remuneration and homes in which they could take genuine pride, thereby providing them with an attraction more powerful than the public-house. For all these reasons he was bound to dissent from the promoters of the Bill and vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. TIMOTHY DAVIES (Fulham)said he rose because up to the present not one of the London Members had got up to say how thankful they were to the Government for bringing London within the scope of the Bill. They were thankful that London was to be placed under the same conditions practically as other large cities. He wished the Government would have withdrawn the first Amendment on the Paper, and stuck only to the second. At the same time he would have been better pleased if they had withdrawn both.
§ * MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)said the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary had made some rather unjust and undeserved remarks on the comments from the Opposition. In the first part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that exactly the same arguments were being used now as were used in Committee, but on that occasion the 1281 speeches were being made from the front benches, and now they were being made from the back benches. So many speeches were made from the front benches in the Committee stage that those on the back were unable to say that which they wished to say. But on that occasion they were discussing, not this clause, but subsection (1) only. It was impossible to discuss in Committee the questions of the bona fide traveller and of Monmouthshire. The question of Monmouthshire had been discussed to a certain extent on Clause 9, but if he remembered rightly the debate in Committee upon the present clause was confined exclusively to subsection (1). In the debate that afternoon attention had been mainly directed to subsections (2) and (3), which were not discussed at all in Committee. As to the absence of Members of the front Opposition bench, they had gone to South Wales and would have an opportunity of studying the question at close quarters. Another important point was that the whole situation, in their Anew, was changed by the utterances of the Prime Minister and Solicitor-General as to the obligation of innkeepers to serve non-alcoholic refreshments after closing time and on Sundays. It was said that the law had always been so, but that was not the view taken by licence-holders themselves. The greatest possible confusion had been caused by the Prime Minister's interpretation of the law. It was a new situation created since the discussion in Committee. A new point which he wished the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench to deal with was as to whether the licence-holders in Monmouthshire, who were to be for the first time subject to Sunday closing, would get remission for a seventh part of the duty. According to what he read in the Bill, they would not, but surely that would be unjust. In Clause 20, subsection (3), if a house was closed on Sundays by the justices, as one of the conditions which they had power to impose, the licensee would get the benefit of Section 49 of the Act of 1872, and would only pay six-sevenths of the duty. It might be said that the case could be met by the licensees of Monmouthshire taking out a six-days licence. But that was not so. If a 1282 licensee in Monmouthshire took out a six-days licence, he would not be able to serve a bona fide traveller on Sunday at all. It was clearly not intended to prevent the bona fide traveller in Monmouthshire from getting refreshments on Sunday, and this point really deserved the attention of Ministers. A great injustice would be inflicted on the licence-holders in Monmouthshire unless the Government took some steps to remedy this defect. Possibly they could promise that it would be done suitably in another place, as had been promised in one or two other cases.
§ * MR. MCCALLUM (Paisley)said he heartily supported this clause. Scotland had been so often referred to in the course of the debate as a benighted country, that possibly he might be able to give them some of his personal experience in regard to Sunday closing there. It was the custom years ago for Glasgow visitors to go to Paisley every Sunday, frequently as many as 600 or 700 arriving there merely for the purpose of drinking. The whole community was annoyed by this nuisance. There were two hotels which had the seven days licence, and where these visitors could get drink. Seven years ago the magistrates decided to give them only a six days licence, with the result that the people were enabled to go about their ordinary business, and after this experience of Sunday closing he was sure that 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of Paisley would uphold the policy adopted by the magistrates. Two private clubs were started, and they had a great deal of drunkenness in consequence on the Monday mornings. The magistrates again set themselves to work to put down this drinking, and on men found drunk on the Monday morning they inflicted fines of £2 or a month's imprisonment, so succeeding in killing both these clubs in a couple of months. The liquor which was supplied was bad and had a most vitiating effect on the men who partook of it, but since those clubs had been abolished, he was sure that the people of Paisley would not desire to go back to the old system. He gave this instance because he thought that if they had a strong and healthy public opinion behind the 1283 magistrates in dealing with this matter they would achieve the same excellent results elsewhere.
§ MR. LANE-FOXIs this six miles from Glasgow?
§ MR. MCCALLUMIt is seven miles.
§ MR. LANE-FOXA case of that kind is not touched by the Bill in England.
§ MR. MCCALLUMsaid the argument was the same. The difference between three miles and six only meant that a man who travelled six or seven miles might be thirstier than if he only travelled three miles. He thought that an ounce of experience was better than a ton of philosophy, and he was sure that if hon. Members had a little experience such as he possessed they would be disposed to look upon this Sunday closing as an actual necessity in the age in which they lived. He was not going into the Sabbatarian question, though he thought it was perfectly germane so long as they had an Established Church and held religious views. He, however, looked at this question from the humane point of view, and if in London they had every library, museum and picture gallery open on the Sunday and the public-houses closed, he was certain that they would soon all be the better for it. He protested against the tone of some hon. Members who referred to those who supported Sunday closing as fanatics and so forth. Medical science had demonstrated that the man who did not drink and led a pure life lived longer than those who drank. Further, the insurance returns showed that the man who did not drink got his life policy for 5 per cent. less. Surely hon. Members should be tolerant of those who were abstainers as well as of those who thought it wise to take drink, and he must again protest against the tone which had been adopted by some hon. Members in the course of the debate.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)said he wished to reply to the Under-Secretary who had taunted them because the front Opposition bench was not occupied. The absence of right hon. 1284 Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen from the front Opposition bench was due to the fact that they were fulfilling an engagement in Wales which had been fixed long before this stage of the Bill was put down. He could assure the House that no one more than they regretted their absence on this occasion, but it was due to the unfortunate clashing of two events on that particular day. Otherwise, they would have been present to answer the right hon. Gentleman. ["Do it now."] Well, he would deal with the case of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks first. What the hon. Member for the Sevenoaks division said was that if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that he really meant to deal with clubs in a proper manner he would vote in support of the subsection for Sunday closing, but that it was absolutely futile, or words to that effect, to vote for Sunday closing if dubs were not adequately dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman when he spoke was unable to give such an assurance with respect to clubs, and he quite frankly said that the question must stand over. That being so the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks voted against the subsection as well as against the clause itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University had made equally strong remarks on the question of clubs, and he referred to the opinion of Prebendary Carlile that there was worse and more vicious drinking going on in clubs than in the public-houses of London on a Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman, if he was dealing with what the two hon. Members said, must remember that the support which they promised was conditional upon a proper dealing with clubs, which they held should be placed on the same basis as public-houses. He confessed that he himself was in great difficulty with reference to the subsection, and he had abstained from voting one way or the other because of that difficulty. Personally he admitted at once that he had what many Members would call Sabbatarian crotchets, and that he sympathised with Sabbatarianism. He felt strongly that as far as London was concerned if they passed this legislation in respect to public-houses when they had clubs which were affiliated to a 1285 thousand other clubs, a very large number of which would be in the Metropolitan area, they would be going through a farce in closing public-houses, and one felt that if they were really dealing with a temperance matter of this kind they were simply causing annoyance and inconvenience to a large number of people, and really not going to the root of the matter at all. He had always had grave doubts whether they could enforce temperance by Act of Parliament, but assuming they were prepared to impose greater restrictions in that way, with the present state of the clubs it was a mere farce to deal with one part of the matter, the public-houses, without dealing with the clubs at the same time. For that reason he thought the condition made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was perfectly fair. The question of the six-mile limit was a very difficult one. Whether or not it was any use to pass such a section as this in a piecemeal way he had the greatest possible doubts. Though he did not wish to vote against the subsection he felt that no one could vote for it without feeling that it did not deal really with the difficulty in large towns such as London. If it was really causing inconvenience to people who wanted to drink they would find clubs springing up at every turn. For that reason, he could not support the clause, though he did not propose to vote against it.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)said he should not have risen but for the fact that they had had no answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield. It was an extremely important point that under certain circumstances refreshment houses would have to be closed whilst licensed premises, although not entitled to sell liquor, would be entitled to sell refreshments, and the refreshment houses would be placed in an extremely disadvantageous position. He did not know that there was any answer to that. He could not believe it was the object of the majority opposite to strike this blow at refreshment rooms and give this benefit to licensed premises. They
§ had not at present to supply refreshments, and he thought it was highly probable that when it became extended, although they might not supply liquor, they would be compelled to supply refreshments to bona fide applicants—food and possibly temperance drinks. It would under these circumstances be the very gravest hardship on properly licensed refreshment rooms that they also should not be entitled to provide refreshments as they and their customers might wish. With regard to the bona fide traveller, why was this attack made upon walkers instead of upon those who went in trams and buses? He was fond of walking and many a day he had had a walk of the kind they would now have to extend to six miles. He had gone four or five miles, and he honestly confessed he wanted a drink and a biscuit, and he had had it. He had walked four or five miles and had got home in a reasonable time. But under this proposal it would be absolutely impossible to do it. Those who went in trams and motor-cars might do their six miles and get their drinks, but pedestrians, who ought to be encouraged in every way, could not be expected to go six miles before they could get a drink. He should be glad to know whether the Member for Battersea always went six miles on a Sunday morning. He would certainly require refreshment before doing twelve miles. With regard to Monmouthshire, why should this attack be made on the Forest of Dean, and on Gloucestershire? That was what it really was. They found in Monmouthshire the constables objected to the closing because the people came over the border. If they included Monmouthshire the same thing must happen with the next counties. They would then have the constables of the Forest of Dean complaining, and he had not the slightest doubt that the county would suffer from the clause. The clauses relating to Sunday closing in restaurants in London were in absolute chaos.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 393.)
1289| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Alden, Percy |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Agnew, George William | Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Furness, Sir Christopher | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Menzies, Walter |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Gill, A. H. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Mond, A. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Montague, Hon. E. S. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Morrell, Philip |
| Beale, W. P. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Morse, L. L. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Muldoon, John |
| Bennett, E. N. | Hall, Frederick | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Harcourt, Rt Hn. L. (Rossendale | Napier, T. B. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nicholls, George |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Helme, Norval Watson | Partington, Oswald |
| Brace, William | Hemmerde, Edward George | Paul, Herbert |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Henry, Charles S. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Philips, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh) | Higham, John Sharp | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Hobart, Sir Robert | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh Central) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hodge, John | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Holland, Sir William Henry | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hooper, A. G. | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Horniman, Emslie John | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Rees, J. D. |
| Cameron, Robert | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hudson, Walter | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hyde, Clarendon | Richardson, A. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Illingworth, Percy H. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Jackson, R. S. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Clough, William | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Robinson, S. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Jardine, Sir J. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Johnson, John (Gates-head) | Rowlands, J. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Crossley, William J. | Kekewich, Sir George | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Laidlaw, Robert | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Sears, J. E. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lambert, George | Seddon, J. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Lamont, Norman | Shackleton, David James |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Lehmann, R. C. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Levy, Sir Maurice | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lewis, John Herbert | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Lyell, Charles Henry | Snowden, P. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Krskine, David C. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Staler, H. Y. |
| Esselmont, George Birnie | Maclean, Donald | Steadman, W. C. |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Callum, John M. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Crae, Sir George | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | M'Micking, Major G. | Summerbell, T. |
| Findlay, Alexander | Maddison, Frederick | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Mallett, Charles E. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Marnham, F. J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Massie, J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan | Williamson, A. |
| Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Waterlow, D. S. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Tomkinson, James | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. | |
| Verney, F. W. | Wilkie, Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Villiers, Ernest Amherst | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | |
| Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n | |
| Waring, Walter | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gardner, Ernest | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George B. | Scott, Sir S. (Marlyebone, W.) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Stanier, Beville |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Starkey, John R. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Cave, George | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | White, Patrick (Heath, North) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Winterton, Earl |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Nolan, Joseph | Young, Samuel |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Percy, Earl | |
| Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.) | Remnant, James Farquharson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Gilbert Parker and Mr. Fell. |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| Forster, Henry William | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 13, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'one hour,' and to insert the words 'three hours.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)said this was a question which he raised on the Committee stage, and he desired to raise it again. This Amendment would enable a bench of magistrates to fix the three opening hours between noon and three o'clock. The Solicitor-General said that the provision was intended to suit watering places where it was desirable that the opening hours should be close together in the afternoon and where evening opening was not required. It appeared to him that the proposal opened the door to something very much more extreme, and would go entirely beyond the recommendations 1290 of the Report which he had signed, as some benches might take advantage of it not to open at all at night. For those reasons he should be obliged to vote against the Amendment unless some words were inserted which would prevent the case he had mentioned from happening.
§ SIR S. EVANSIt is quite true that if my Amendment is adopted the justices in any particular place can fix the three hours in the afternoon any time between noon and ten o'clock at night. We think that this elasticity is advantageous, and we do not think it is likely to be abused. It might be extremely convenient to a particular locality to have two hours or even three hours in the early afternoon in watering places which might not desire to open after five or six o'clock. In those cases it might also be advantageous to the public who have to be served. Of course, it is not an inflexible rule, and we think it is a matter which 1291 it is quite safe to leave to the discretion of the justices. That is why the Amendment has been proposed.
§ * MR. G. D. FABER (York)said he had altered his opinion upon this matter. When the clause was first brought in it provided that there should be one hour between noon and 3 p.m., and any two hours between 6 and 10 p.m. Now it was proposed that the first hour should be between 12 and 3 p.m., but the other two hours should be at any time the licensing justices cared to fix. He had at first thought this favoured elasticity, but if it happened to be a
§ teetotal bench who did not favour drinking at a later hour they could fix the whole of the three hours between 12 and 3 in the afternoon, and the public-houses in that district would be entirely shut to the inconvenience of the majority during all the rest of the hours of Sunday. That was the reason why he had altered his mind on this point, and he hoped his hon. friend would divide the House upon this Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words 'one hour' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 288. (Division List No. 394.)
1295| AYES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hills, J. W. | Stanier, Beville |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Houston, Robert Paterson | Starkey, John R. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Kerry, Earl of | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Cave, George | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E. | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Cross, Alexander | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Young, Samuel |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, George |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Oddy, John James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Fell, Arthur | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Percy, Earl | |
| Gill, A. H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bell, Richard | Buckmaster, Stanley O. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Bellairs, Carlyon | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Agnew, George William | Bennett, E. N. | Burnyeat, W. J. D. |
| Alden, Percy | Berridge, T. H. D. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Byles, William Pollard |
| Armitage, R. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Cameron, Robert |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Black, Arthur W. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bottomley, Horatio | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bowerman, C. W. | Cawley, Sir Frederick |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brace, William | Chance, Frederick William |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bramsdon, T. A. | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Barnard, E. B. | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Brodie, H. C. | Clough, William |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Brooke, Stopford | Clynes., J. R. |
| Beale, W. P. | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Beauchamp, E. | Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Bryce, J. Annan | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hudson, Walter | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Pullar, Sir Robert |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hyde, Clarendon | Radford, G. H. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Rees, J. D. |
| Crossley, William J. | Jackson, R. S. | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th |
| Davies, David (Montgomery, Co. | Jardine, Sir J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Richardson, A. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf 'rd |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Jowett, F. W. | Robinson, S. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles | Kekewich, Sir George | Rowlands, J. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Laidlaw, Robert | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lambert, George | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Lamont, Norman | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lehmann, R. C. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lewis, John Herbert | Sears, J. E. |
| Erskine, David C. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Seddon, J. |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Seely, Colonel |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lyell, Charles Henry | Shackleton, David James |
| Fenwick, Charles | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Findlay, Alexander | Maclean, Donald | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Callum, John M. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Crae, Sir George | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Snowden, P. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | M'Micking, Major G. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Maddison, Frederick | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Glover, Thomas | Mallet, Charles E. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marnham, F. J. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Massie, J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Menzies, Walter | Summerbell, T. |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Micklem, Nathaniel | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Molteno, Percy Alport | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mond, A. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hall, Frederick | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Montgomery, H. G. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Morrell, Philip | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbys're. N. E.) | Morse, L. L. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Napier, T. B. | Tomkinson, James |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Nicholls, George | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncas'r | Verney, F. W. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Partington, Oswald | Walters, John Tudor |
| Higham, John Sharp | Paul, Herbert | Walton, Joseph |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Paulton, James Mellor | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Waring, Walter |
| Hodge, John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Hooper, A. G. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Power, Patrick Joseph | Watt, Henry A. |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n | Yoxall, James Henry |
| White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) | |
| Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) | |
| Wiles, Thomas | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) | |
| Wilkie, Alexander | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | |
| Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | Winfrey, R. |
§ Proposed words inserted in the Bill.
§ And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, which were necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the clock this day, in
1296§ pursuance of the Order of the House of 11th November.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 13, line 5, to leave out the words '3 p.m., and for any two hours between 6 p.m. and.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 285; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 395.)
1299| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Chance, Frederick William | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Agnew, George William | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath] |
| Alden, Percy | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Clough, William | Greenwood, Hamar (York) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Armitage, B. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hall, Frederick |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose] |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cowan, W. H. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Crossley, William J. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. |
| Beale, W. P. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Bell, Richard | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Henry, Charles S. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Duckworth, Sir James | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hodge, John |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Brace, William | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Bright, J. A. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Brodie, H. C. | Erskine, David C. | Hudson, Walter |
| Brooke, Stopford | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Everett, R. Lacey | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Fenwick, Charles | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Ferens, T. R. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Findlay, Alexander | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Fuller, John Michael F. | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Fullerton, Hugh | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Cameron, Robert | Furness, Sir Christopher | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Kekewich, Sir George |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Paul, Herbert | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Paulton, James Mellor | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Summerbell, T. |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Lambert, George | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lamont, Norman | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Pullar, Sir Robert | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Radford, G. H. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Lupton, Arnold | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Rees, J. D. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Rendall, Athelstan | Tomkinson, James |
| Lynch, H. B. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Verney, F. W. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Richardson, A. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Maclean, Donald | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roberston, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Walton, Joseph |
| M'Callum, John M. | Robinson, S. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| M'Crae, Sir George | Rose, Charles Day | Waring, Walter |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rowlands, J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackman'an |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Marnham, F. J. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Massie, J. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Menzies, Walter | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Sears, J. E. | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Seaverns, J. H. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Mond, A. | Seddon, J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Seely, Colonel | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Shackleton, David James | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Morrell, Philip | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Morse, L. L. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Napier, T. B. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Winfrey, R. |
| Nicholls, George | Snowden, P. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Soares, Ernest J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Stanger, H. Y. | |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Steadman, W. C. | |
| Partington, Oswald | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cross, Alexander | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Harwood, George |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hills, J. W. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Faber, George Denison (York) | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Kerry, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Fardell, Sir T. George | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Fell, Arthur | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Fletcher, J. S. | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gardner, Ernest | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gill, A. H. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Cave, George | Glover, Thomas | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Gretton, John | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Clynes, J. R. | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Haddock, George B. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Oddy, John James | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| O'Grady, J. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Percy, Earl | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Stanier, Beville | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Starkey, John R. | Winterton, Earl |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. | Young, Samuel |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) | Younger, George |
| Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Thorne, William (West Ham) | |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Thornton, Percy M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | |
| Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles | Walsh, Stephen |
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 13, line 7, at the end, to insert the words 'subject to the condition that one of the hours so fixed must be between noon and 3 p.m. Provided that, in the application of this provision to premises in the Metropolitan district, four hours shall be substituted for three
§ hours and 11 p.m. shall be substituted for 10 p.m.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 396.)
1303| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Clough, William | Glover, Thomas |
| Agnew, George William | Clynes, J. R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Alden, Percy | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) |
| Armitage, R. | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Hall, Frederick |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cowan, W. H. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Crosfield, A. H. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Crossley, William J. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Beale, W. P. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Harwood, George |
| Bell, Richard | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Dobson, Thomas W. | Henry, Charles S. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Duckworth, Sir James | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brace, William | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Bright, J. A. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hodge, John |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Brodie, H. C. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Erskine, David C. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hudson, Walter |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Everett, R. Lacey | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Fell, Arthur | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Fenwick, Charles | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Ferens, T. R. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Findlay, Alexander | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Cameron, Robert | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Fuller, John Michael F. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fullerton, Hugh | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Furness, Sir Christopher | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Chance, Frederick William | Gill, A. H. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Parker, James (Halifax) | Summerbell, T. |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Partington, Oswald | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Paul, Herbert | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Paulton, James Mellor | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Lambert, George | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Lamont, Norman | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Pullar, Sir Robert | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Radford, G. H. | Tomkinson, James |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Rees, J. D. | Verney, F. W. |
| Lynch, H. B. | Rendall, Athelstan | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Walsh, Stephen |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Richardson, A. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Maclean, Donald | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Walton, Joseph |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| M'Callum, John M. | Robinson, S. | Waring, Walter |
| M'Crae, Sir George | Rose, Charles Day | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rowlands, J. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Claekmannan |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Massie, J. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | White Sir Luke (York, F. R.) |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Menzies, Walter | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Seaverns, J. H. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Seddon, J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Mond, A. | Seely, Colonel | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Shackleton, David James | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Willams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wison, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Morrell, Philip | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. H.) |
| Morse, L. L. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard. | Snowden, P. | Winfrey, R. |
| Napier, T. B. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Nicholls, George | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Stanger, H. Y. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Steadman, W. C. | Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | |
| O'Grady, J. | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Cross, Alexander | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kerry, Earl of |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Faber, George Denison (York) | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gardner, Ernest | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Cave, George | Gretton, John | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Potersfield) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Haddock, George B. | Oddy, John James |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Hamilton, Marquess of | Percy, Earl |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Hills, J. W. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Remnant, James Farquharson | Starkey, John R. | Winterton, Earl |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. | Young, Samuel |
| Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) | Younger, George |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Thornton, Percy M. | |
| Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) | |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | |
| Stanier, Beville | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 13, to leave out lines 12 and 13."—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 283; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 397.)
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Agnew, George William | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. |
| Armitage, R. | Cowan, W. H. | Harwood, George |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Crosfield, A. H. | Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Crossley, William J. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Barnard, E. B. | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Henry, Charles S. |
| Beale, W. P. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Bell, Richard | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hodge, John |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Duckworth, Sir James | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Rom'rd | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Black, Arthur W. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Hudson, Walter |
| Brace, William | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Bright, J. A. | Erskine, David C. | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Brodie, H. C. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Everett, R. Lacey | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh | Fenwick, Charles | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Ferens, T. R. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Findlay, Alexander | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Fullerton, Hugh | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Furness, Sir Christopher | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Cameron, Robert | Gill, A. H. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Lambert, George |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Glover, Thomas | Lamont, Norman |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Chance, Frederick William | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Clough, William | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Clynes, J. R. | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hall, Frederick | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Lynch, H. B. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Radford, G. H. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rees, J. D. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Maclean, Donald | Rendall, Athelstan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Tomkinson, James |
| M'Crae, Sir George | Richardson, A. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Verney, F. W. |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Maddison, Frederick | Robinson, S. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Rose, Charles Day | Walsh, Stephen |
| Marnham, F. J. | Rowlands, J. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Massie, J. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Walton, Joseph |
| Menzies, Walter | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Waring, Walter |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Mond, A. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under Lyne | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Seaverns, J. H. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Morrell, Philip | Seely, Colonel | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Morse, L. L. | Shackleton, David James | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Shaw, Sir Charles Edw. (Stafford | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Napier, T. B. | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Nicholls, George | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wiles, Thomas |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Snowden, P. | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| O'Grady, J. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Soares, Ernest J. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Partington, Oswald | Stanger, H. Y. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Paul, Herbert | Steadman, W. C. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffold, Eye) | Summerbell, T. | Winfrey, R. |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Sutherland, J. E. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | |
| Pullar, Sir Robert | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hills, J. W. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanier, Beville |
| Cave, George | Kerry, Earl of | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Cross, Alexander | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Winterton, Earl |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Young, Samuel |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Younger, George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Fell, Arthur | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Oddy, John James | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
1307§ MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he rose to move the omission of Clause 20 on the broad ground that powers so wide were sought to be conferred by it on the licensing justices that they were altogether an exaggeration of the necessities of the case. They had been discussing at great length the whole of the licensing law, the position of licence-holders, the position of the justices of the peace, and the position of the State in regard to immediate control and future acquisition of the monopoly value and the rest, and he submitted that having laid down certain principles with regard to all those matters it should not be within the power of the licensing justices at their discretion to make fresh changes in the law after the general law had been laid down. If Parliamentary control was worth anything in these matters, it ought not to be at the discretion of the licensing justices to review the decisions of Parliament and upset them. And he would point out, that the extension of these powers was only in one direction. The justices in many ways had their discretion severely limited. They were told that they were to reduce the number of licences according to a scheme and their proceedings were severely hampered by the Licensing Commission. They had no power to extend the number of houses, but under this clause they had powers given them still further to harry and harass the licensed trade in many particulars. In the 1904 debates they heard a great deal of the discretion of the justices, and if that was to be a real discretion, if they were to trust them from first to last, they ought to trust them in more than one direction. They ought not to trust them in one direction and limit their freedom and their powers in another. They found that the licensing justices had no discretion to make things more tolerable for the licensed trade by the powers given them, but they were still more severely and drastically to extend the law against the licensed trade and all those concerned in it. He thought he could prove that by going very shortly through the various extra powers that had been conferred upon them. In the first place they might attach to the renewal of an on-licence any condition as to the 1308 arrangement of the premises open to the public. That was a fair provision if only applied to new licences, but it would be applied to all licences, even during the reduction period. It was in the power of the justices under subsection (a) to put the licence owners or holders of licensed property to very great and uncertain expense. They would not know from one year to another what conditions would be imposed. They might be required to make all sorts of structural alterations, to put up expensive plate glass partitions, and, in fine, to transform their houses. It was the uncertainty he complained of. It was said that if the members of the licensed trade had a certain number of years to put their affairs in order they would be able to make arrangements and be safe at the end of a given time. They knew that was not so in regard to other parts of the Bill, because they might be disturbed by local option or other conditions, and even during the fourteen years they would be at the mercy of the local justices in so far as they might be required to alter their premises to any extent, and that was to put a new and unfair burden upon them. This clause was by no means necessary from the point of view of the main structure of the Bill, which was to give fourteen years for a reduction period and a further seven years during which the houses might remain. The clause introduced a new element of uncertainty to all licence-holders. What he had said with regard to sub-head (a) was true of sub-head (b) which dealt with the access to the premises. Here was another great vista of possible expense and inconvenience to be thrown upon the licensed trade. Then as to the supply of greater measure, or what was known as the long pull, with the technicalities of which he was not acquainted. It would be easy to evade because if certain customers required a longer pull they could be met by a reduction in the price instead of by increase of liquor. Section (d) gave a power to the magistrates which if exercised would make the boundary question perfectly intolerable. Different licensing authorties might have different hours for closing on Sunday, and people living near the boundary would, by crossing it, be able to get what they wanted. 1309 The result would be that the licence-holders on one side of the boundary would be penalised, whilst those on the other would be enriched. Monmouth was to be included in the Sunday closing provision, because of the effect in the county of Sunday closing in Wales. Directly Monmouth had been included it would be found necessary to extend Sunday closing to the Forest of Dean, because of the very evil which was now complained of in Monmouth. What took place now with regard to Glamorganshire and Monmouth would then take place with regard to Monmouth and the counties which bordered it, and the difficulty would be much increased. It should not be in the power of licensing justices to upset the result of Parliamentary deliberations, which they would do if this discretion was allowed them. Subsection (e) also could lead to nothing but local confusion. He did not understand how that provision was to be applied. The licensing justices might have different views as to the bona fide traveller. The limit of the distance might be different in adjoining areas, and a man having walked six miles might be met with a refusal on the ground that the justices had extended the limit to ten miles. There would be the utmost confusion from a variety of practice. Surely what Parliament had rightly or wrongly decided ought not to be disturbed by the caprice of magistrates in various districts by local justices. The same argument applied to the next section which related to the closing of licensed premises on election days. At present the view held was that if an election took place in any part of England or Wales, no public-house could be kept open in any place throughout the country. That was not the intention of the Government, and the wording must be amended, but there again would crop up the boundary difficulty, and if the justices stopped the sale of liquor in one district a rush would be made to the adjoining districts. The penalty to be imposed for default in complying with any of the justices' conditions he regarded as immoderate. Surely it ought to be sufficient to impose a fine where a man had made a small slip, such as serving a traveller who had only come five miles instead of six or serving a 1310 person on a polling day, and the licence should not be taken away unless the offence were repeated after full warning had been given. On the grounds that he had stated, he begged to move to omit Clause 20.
§ * MR. YOUNGERin seconding the Amendment, said the policy of the clause was extremely objectionable. He was one of those who had considered this question of the restrictions of the licensing laws for a long period—over four years—and it had been borne in upon his mind rightly or wrongly that the licensing laws ought to be consistent and uniform throughout the country. It would not be either desirable or wise to have districts contiguous to each other under different regulations. In a matter of this importance people ought to know what the law was to realise when they were breaking it; and, moreover, those carrying on an extremely difficult trade should not be asked to face unnecessary difficulties. There should be consistency in both administration and law, as had been prescribed in the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Unless there was some occult reason, of which he was not aware, it was unnecessary to deal with the arrangements relating to the premises and the access thereto, because the Act of 1902 provided that no alteration upon them could be made without the sanction of the justices. Subsection (c) dealing with the "long pull" was almost comical, because it applied entirely to on-licences, while it was chiefly in off-licensed premises, to which the section did not apply, that the "long pull" was observed. After all, what was a long pull? He had no personal experience, but he was informed that the long pull really consisted of the addition of some extremely light non-intoxicating beer to a stronger liquor. The publican filled up the measure with a draft of this light beer—lighter even than that stone ginger-beer which the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Appleby affected. Why should not a man have his stronger drink diluted with a weaker if he chose in the same way that a man diluted his whisky with soda water? Perhaps the Solicitor-General would tell the House that.
§ SIR S. EVANSIt is the licensed victuallers who have asked for this subsection.
§ * MR. YOUNGERsaid that might be. He did not object to that, what he objected to was the comical character of the Bill. He might remind the House that they were dealing now with a strictly free trade Government, and it seemed rather hard in them to prevent a man getting greater value for his money if he could. It was not consistent with the free trade principles which hon. Members opposite professed on platforms and in the House. The power to place further restrictions upon Sunday opening and to select various houses which might be entirely prohibited from opening on Sunday seemed somewhat drastic, and he did not think it was at all satisfactory. The Bill had gone considerably beyond the recommendations of the Majority Report with respect to Sunday opening. He understood that during his absence in the afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary noticed the fact that he had not voted in the division on the Sunday closing clause, and that he was not in his place to deal with the matter. He had, however, dealt with the subject once or twice during the Committee stage, and he did not in the least recede from what he had said on those occasions. He then said that a reasonable modification of the hours of Sunday opening was desirable, but he reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had gone a good deal further in the matter than he or the Commission was of opinion they ought to go, and while he could not vote against the proposal he did not vote for it. He had gone no further than to say he thought it was desirable there should be some modification. He did not see anything very occult about that; it seemed very obvious, and certainly he did not in any way recede from the position he then took up.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELI did not refer to the hon. Member with the view of accusing him of inconsistency. I merely called in aid his authority to support the general policy of our clause.
§ * MR. YOUNGERsaid he came prepared to give the Government what assistance he could, and was perfectly willing to afford it if the right hon. Gentleman had not already sat down. The bona fide traveller clause was likely to create some difficulty, and it certainly also appeared to be a very drastic thing to give the magistrates power to close the public-houses in connection with what he might call local elections. They were continually having small local elections nowadays, in which very few people took interest, frequently only referring to the newspapers the next morning to see who had got in. To say that those elections should give a further opportunity for restricting people from a perfectly natural and proper indulgence, in what after all was harmless, so long as it was kept in its place, seemed to him to draw the line so ridiculously stringently as to make this clause in that respect an insult to the electors themselves. It was ridiculous to suppose that a man was not able to say that A or B should be his county councillor without the public-houses being closed. He had never seen anybody very excited over county council elections, except perhaps in London, where they were more or less political. All this restrictive policy, and all these dictatorial legislative powers which were being given to magistrates, were another nail in the coffin of those who desired to see real public-house reform. Those restrictions must inevitably tend to degrade the public-house and convert it into a mere drinking place for adults. They did not permit any kind of innocent attraction or any kind of assimilation of our public-houses to the class of cafés they had in France, which were harmless places, and which he was sure most of them would like to see established in this country. He believed the whole administration of the licensing laws of Great Britain had been a stupid administration. He believed that if, instead of placing restrictions upon the publicans, instead of converting these houses into mere drinking bars, they had taken an enlightened view and encouraged licensed publicans so to change their mode of carrying on business as to offer the attractions in their houses which clubs offered and under strict regulations, they would 1313 not have the difficulties which they experienced to-day, and they probably would not have had this Bill except in its financial aspect, because it would have been wholly unnecessary. He protested against the constant efforts of the Legislature to make more and more impossible the establishment in this country of the class of house to which he had referred. The hon. Member for the Tradeston division of Glasgow had said he should be glad to see places where they supplied intoxicating drinks to the ordinary workman made respectable only and not respected. If they had had cafes like those in France established in this country long ago they would have created a different state of matters in our cities from that which they found to-day. Long ago they would have seen men and their wives and families going into those places, and getting whatever sort of refreshment they wanted—tea, coffee, and even the stone-bottled ginger beer that his hon. friend affected, with 2 or 3 per cent. of alcohol in it. They would then have had respectability and respect also. That was what they ought to strive for, and not by this continuous restriction do everything they could to discredit the public-house, making it a mere drinking bar. It was because this clause contributed to that unfortunate result that he strongly objected to it and should vote against it, and also because, in his judgment, they should not place legislative powers of this kind in the hands of the local bench, parliament ought to have the courage to say itself what ought to be the law. It ought not in a cowardly way to delegate its own authority and responsibility to others. The law, if it was to be properly administered, must be thoroughly understood, must be consistent, and generally applicable throughout the kingdom. He begged to second.
§
Amendment propoced—
In page 14, line 12, to leave out Clause 20."—(Mr. James Hope.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'arrangements,' in page 14, line 15, stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. GOOCH (Bath)said that those who sat on the Ministerial benches regarded Clause 20 as one of the most valuable 1314 clauses in the Bill. He certainly regarded each one of the subsections as well worthy a place in any licensing or temperance reform Bill. Valuable as the clause was as it stood, he congratulated the Government on proposing to make it still more valuable, by putting down an Amendment, as the Solicitor-General had done, to give local authorities the power to prevent the opening of licensed premises before eight o'clock in the morning. He could not imagine that any exception could be taken to that proposal in any quarter of the House. But while congratulating the Government, he expressed his great regret that they had not seen their way to go a little further and carry out another part of the recommendations of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, viz., that which had reference to earlier closing in the evening. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs had said with perfect truth that the Majority Report did not look favourably on local discretion to close earlier in the evening, but it did recommend earlier closing on the Saturday evening in Ireland—where, he was glad to know, it had been carried out—while as regarded England and Wales, the Commissioners said they would welcome some further curtailment, but they did not think public opinion was ripe for it. He did not think that looked as if they objected to some further curtailment. Having regard to the fact that the Majority Report had been referred to, he thought it only right that some reference to the Minority Report should be made on the Ministerialist Benches, and he thought he was right in saying that on no subject of practical temperance reform did the Minority Report take a stronger view than in reference to earlier closing of public-houses. They suggested that public-houses should not be opened before seven and eight, and most strongly recommended that discretion should be given to close not one hour earlier in the evening but actually two hours earlier. It was suggested that in cases where this was done it should only be done by way of experiment for one year, so that if it did not succeed it could be withdrawn. In London, public-houses were open every day in the week except Saturday and Sunday until half-an-hour after midnight. It seemed extraordinary that in 1315 this comprehensive measure there should be no reference to that point. He hoped very much, if the Bill was discussed in another place, that some friend of temperance would suggest an Amendment in favour of closing earlier in the evenings.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member as far as I understand, is addressing himself rather to an Amendment of the clause. The question I have to put is that the clause stand part. If he is speaking, as I think he is, on a suggested Amendment to the clause, he ought to wait until he gets to the Amendment.
§ MR. G. GOOCHI think I have expressed what I desire to say.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)said that to anyone who had really taken the trouble to study the question without any prejudice on the one side in favour of teetotal principles, and without any pecuniary or other interest on the other hand, this clause would certainly present itself as being, perhaps, the most objectionable in the whole Bill. It simply gave a discretionary power to the justices to attach conditions to the renewal of any licence—not the whole of the licences in their district, but any one or more licences, and it would not be incumbent on them to attach the same set of conditions to all the houses. They might attach any kind of condition to one house, and another condition to another. They might attach conditions in respect to a certain number of defined points, which were set out in detail in the clause. This was practically inviting different benches of magistrates to behave in a capricious manner. They might single out certain licensees or certain portions of the district for differential treatment. They had had cases where, in the opinion, at all events, of unprejudiced people, various benches in different parts of the country had acted unfairly, and it seemed to him that this tremendous discretionary power which was sought to be given by this clause, would enable any such bench to act even more unfairly in the future than they had done in the past. There was practically no safeguard, with 1316 the exception of the clause about appeal, which was the same thing as the law to-day on the subject, against the annoyance and the difficulty which a bench of magistrates might cause to any given licensee. They had to look at the different matters in respect of which these conditions might be imposed, and the first of them was the arrangement of any part of the premises open to the public. He knew of a number of cases where magistrates had acted upon this proposed power. They had already made conditions with regard to the arrangement of the premises, and it had had the effect of imposing some most objectionable restrictions, which had resulted in certain definite evils, and the invitation which was held out by the clause to magistrates to impose further restrictions would only have the effect of increasing and accentuating those evils. The effect had been in a number of cases that the licensed house had ended in being merely a bar or a couple of bars. Everything else in the way of accommodation to the public had been swept out. When the licensee had applied, as he had done over and over again, for facilities for slightly extending the premises or doing something to accommodate the business, he had been refused. Conditions had been imposed upon him and not a single inch could he get towards increasing the number of square feet in which the sale of drink was allowed, and all kinds of structural alterations for which he had asked permission were refused, and various other structural alterations had been imposed upon him. There was no other business in the world, and no other country in the world, where any authority had a right or proposed to exercise the right of interfering with any business in this extraordinary, detailed, irritating and arbitrary manner. In a large number of cases there were no chairs or tables, and they could not get those facilities. The ventilation in many places was simply abominable. The general effect was to make the houses disreputable, uncomfortable, and unrespectable as far as it could possibly be so made. There were a number of perfectly honest but prejudiced men, some of them Members of that House, who would desire to make a licensed house as inconvenient, 1317 unrespectable, dirty, and ill-ventilated as they possibly could, because they wanted to bring the public-house into disrepute, to harry the brewer in every possible way, and to make it as inconvenient and disreputable as possible for a person to go into a licensed house. They did not hesitate to avow that they did not want these places to exist, but wanted them to become so that they were bound to be closed in deference to public opinion. They wanted to make them impossible. They had succeeded, unfortunately—the Legislature and the benches of magistrates between them—to a very large extent, in carrying out this extraordinary course, particularly during the last twenty years, and the result had been that a large number of the houses were becoming practically impossible. He knew cases where, owing to restrictions imposed by magistrates and reasonable facilities refused, it had been impossible to make the sanitary arrangements adequate. When they carried the thing to that length he thought it would be admitted by every reasonable person who tried to take an unprejudiced view of the question that to allow restrictions of this kind to be made at the mere caprice of benches was very objectionable. The effect of enabling the magistrates to impose these conditions had been to some extent, and would be in the future, to make it impossible to get what he believed all sections of the community would like to see, namely, something approximating to the Continental café. What was wanted was not so much to put an end to places where a man could get some intoxicating liquor, but to try and make those places respectable and decent, where a man would behave in a respectable way. Games were forbidden in nine licensed houses out of ten, and even if they were allowed there was no space in which they could be played. It used to be said, and many people quoted it with great fervour: "Shall I not take mine case at mine inn?" Owing to the way in which the Legislature and the magistrates had treated them, how many inns were left where it was possible for any decent person to go and take his case? Sub-clause (b) was: "Any access to the premises." That had nothing to do with passages and so on, but with doors. The bench of magistrates in Liverpool 1318 set to work a few years ago to make it a condition that certain licensed houses should close their back doors. He believed it was generally conceded that that was a good thing. It helped to put an end to surreptitious and illegal drinking. If it had been imposed as a general law on the whole of the licences, there would not have been anything really to be said against it, but—and this was an illustration of what would happen with regard to subsection (b)—a considerable number of licensed houses were picked out, and they were told that unless they closed their back doors their licences would be refused. Others were allowed to continue with their back doors open, and this had gone on for years. Some restaurants in the centre of the City which were situated in the basements of blocks of offices and had access to the streets, and from the well of the staircase, and from the open courts, where there were other offices behind, were ordered to close all their doors except one, and some of them were left alone with doors all round. This was a kind of thing which was put in hand with a perfectly good motive, but which had caused the greatest possible annoyance because of the unfairness and partiality of its application. That was the reason why he objected to the insertion of a power relating to a matter of this sort as a mere discretion vested in justices. The next section dealt with stopping the long measure. A good deal had been said about the "long pull." In practice, so far as it had come tinder his own personal knowledge, the long pull was this: a man who did not want to go to a licensed house and desired to obtain supper beer would send his servant with a jug to the public-house, and the practice in certain districts had been to give very nearly double, or at least one and a half times as much as the quantity ordered for the same money. Instead of getting one pint in the jug they would get one-and-a-half pints, and instead of getting one quart by the long pull they would probably get a quart and a pint. It was now proposed, to put an end to that practice. It was a fact that nobody over the counter ever got the long measure, and that was not the complaint. The position was that the man who did not want to use 1319 the public-house amenities and spend twenty minutes over a glass of beer would solid his servant with a jug to get the long measure, and this was to be rendered illegal by giving the magistrates power to put an end to it. Why should the man who desired to be put on wholesale terms not be allowed to obtain that advantage? He confessed that he could not see any equitable reason why an acknowledged practice of that sort, where the beer was taken away and consumed off the premises at a meal, should be interfered with. This particular practice was very common in connection with the meals of the working people, and why should they not be able to get beer in this way and upon those terms if the publican chose to supply it? Subsection (d) gave power to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors during the whole of Sunday, and it was to be illegal during certain hours. This was an instance in which one had again to consult personal experience. He was not sufficiently well off to own a motor car; he look his vacation holidays on a bicycle, and he had been in the habit of doing so for many years. Why should he be incommoded by the caprice of any bench of magistrates in any particular district owing to some arrangements they had made, as a consequence of which he might find himself in a place where the licensed houses were closed and he could not get any refreshment. He did not think this was either fair or reasonable. It seemed to him that if it was intended strictly to limit the hours on Sunday it ought to be carried out uniformly all over the country in the same way. Under this subsection magistrates might make it impossible for him to get his meal in one district between twelve and one o'clock. On going to the next district he might find public-houses closed there from one to two o'clock, and then he might have the misfortune to run into a place where they were closed from two to three o'clock. He might run through the country in such a way that during the whole of Sunday he might not be able to get anything to eat or drink. He understood that it was not competent for them to say anything about the clause which the Government proposed to introduce with regard to selling before 8 a.m. He noticed that there was an Amendment upon the Paper by 1320 the Government to introduce between subsections (d) and (e) a restriction giving the magistrates power to make any house shut up prior to eight o'clock. He was afraid, however, he would not be in order in discussing that point.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERStrictly speaking, that is so; but as it is a Government Amendment I shall not offer any objection.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he supposed that the majority of the magistrates were not up before eight o'clock in the morning, and they did not know what was required before that hour. They did not want anything of the kind themselves before eight o'clock in the morning, and they naturally assumed that nobody else did. In the constituency which he represented all kinds of business were being transacted at all hours. People worked throughout the night in shifts, and others were arriving in ships from Ireland and the Isle of Man at all hours in the early morning. Consequently there was an absolute necessity for a considerable portion of houses for public refreshment to be open and available. He looked with a great deal of misgivings upon giving the magistrates power to pick out cases where they would close some public-house before eight o'clock, and allow others to remain open. He noticed in this subsection the words "restriction of the circumstances." He would like to know what circumstances required a restriction, and what was a restricted circumstance. He might be wrong, but he assumed that the intention was that in certain circumstances they might make it possible that a traveller would have to go twelve miles before he could gel a drink. It would be useful if the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his reply, would give them some indication of what a restriction of the circumstances meant. He could conceive of circumstances under which the imposition of these powers would be of the greatest possible use to some tramways which were about seven miles long. He knew of one tramway in a very populous place seven-and-a-quarter miles long with a number of houses at the other end, and those public-houses would do a roaring trade on Sunday because they 1321 would be outside the six miles limit. If it was intended to provide for cases like that he was sure it would not be a good thing to give this special power to prevent people merely taking the exercise. There was also a Government Amendment to leave out the words "Parliamentary or." The intention was to give power to the magistrates to order public-houses to be closed whilst there was a local government election on. He supposed the Government meant such a thing as a city council election. He had fought a number of elections of that sort himself as well as three Parliamentary elections, and the Solicitor-General knew that the only difference was that at one of these elections the ladies could vote and at the other they could not. Were the electors to be trusted to have a glass of beer during the Parliamentary election and to be refused that privilege at elections where the ladies were allowed to vote? That was an invidious distinction to draw. He objected to the whole clause. It left every licence-holder at the mercy of his bench; it did not impose general conditions applicable to all districts; it enabled different benches to impose different restrictions as between one district and another; it enabled different benches to make differences between various licensees; and it also had the further defect that as a bench altered, or the ruling spirit on a bench changed, it enabled the same bench, if they thought fit, in one year arbitrarily to impose an entirely different set of regulations from those imposed in the previous year. One bench this year might tell a number of licensees to do so and so in regard to the internal arrangements of their houses, and another bench in the following year might insist on something entirely different being done. These were some of his objections to the clause. In dealing with the subject involved in the clause there ought to be some definite principles laid down. They were all honestly striving to diminish drunkenness and excessive drinking. In his opinion the proper way to do that was to improve the licensed houses. He believed that every man's conduct arose absolutely from two things, namely, his heredity and his environment. No one could get away from his heredity, but every free man had some power ever 1322 his environment. His conscientious conviction had always been that they ought to surround the working man who went into a licensed house with a respectable, convenient, and decent environment. He believed the man would behave respectably if they did that; at all events, he would be less likely to behave in a disreputable manner. It was because he was convinced that the whole of the conditions of this clause were calculated to accentuate an opposite state of affairs that he supported the Amendment. The imposition of the further restrictions proposed was bound to have a result contrary to that intended by those who, honestly but mistakenly, advocated them.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTS (Lincoln)said the speech of the hon. Member for the West Derby division might have been more consistent with the admirable traditions of the Liverpool licensing bench. If there was one bench in the country which had exercised the power of imposing conditions it was the Liverpool bench. He knew a good deal in regard to the administration by the justices in Liverpool, and he was full of admiration for their work. He asked the Solicitor-General to tell the House whether this clause applied to all licences in a district. He understood that it did, but as there might be some doubt about the matter it would be well to have it thoroughly cleared up. The only doubt in his own mind arose from the fact that in the past it had been held that the justices in the exercise of their discretion had to act in each individual case, and he wished to know whether in future they would be able to take into consideration all the licences in a district. There had been a great number of small points raised as to the general policy of the clause. He reminded the House that before the Act of 1904 was passed this discretionary power was in existence, although it was not statutory. It arose out of the ancient power of the justices to refuse or renew a licence. Students of Sidney Webb's book knew that in the eighteenth century it was used to give local option and complete Sunday closing. It lasted with more or less vigour until before the Act of 1904, and it enabled a number of benches up and down the country to carry out real reforms in their 1323 districts. One of the great complaints against the Act of 1904 was that it destroyed the power of the justices to impose conditions in the same way as before for the good conduct of the trade. He believed that the authors of the Act did not know what they were doing. He was certain from reading the debates that they were absolutely ignorant of the reforming work done by the benches, and that it was by inadvertance they destroyed the power by which the justices were carrying out great reforms throughout the country.
§ * COLONEL WALKER (Lancashire, Widnes)said it should not be forgotten that there was no law which enabled the magistrates to compel the carrying out of the work. It was done with the acquiescence of the brewers and the licensees.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid there was certainly the Alehouse Act of 1828 which provided that a licence lasted for a year and no longer, and if the licence-holder did not carry out the conditions, the licence could be taken away subject to appeal. Where there were quarter sessions to back up the local benches there was no virtue in the power of appeal, and, as a matter of fact, brewers and licence-holders were willing to co-operate with the benches in carrying out the conditions imposed. After the passing of the Act of 1904 a case came before the Court of Appeal, and Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy said that this ancient power of imposing conditions was a most wholesome arrangement. Another Judge whose name he did not remember said that the Act of 1904 introduced a deplorable and lamentable revolution in the mode of administering the licensing laws.
§ * MR. G. D. FABERasked the name of the Judge in the case referred to.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he would look the matter up and give the hon. Member the reference. The whole power of the justices had been weakened, impaired, and practically destroyed by the Act of 1904. Now the justices were getting back not the whole but a limited part of their former power. He could 1324 not imagine why it should be so limited. Perhaps it was because the Government did not wish to cause further financial loss on licence-holders by the imposition of conditions. It would have been very desirable if there had been power given to the justices to require earlier closing of licensed houses in some places. Certainly in London a number of complaints had been made regarding that matter. As to the "long pull" licensed victuallers had complained of the practice over and over again, and the Government had been asked to legislate on the matter in so far as it affected sales under off-licences. It was a practice which was bad for the trade, and certainly it was not good for temperance reform. The justices had been unable to stop the practice in connection with on-licences because they had no control over them. Now that the Government were giving the justices control over them it would be possible to put a stop to the long pull. The hon. Member for the West Derby division had pictured himself on a bicycle and unable to find a public-house open on Sunday. The hon. Member forgot that with a bicycle it would be very easy to convert himself into a bona fide traveller.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDThe hon. Member is making a mistake. I did not say that I was not a bona fide traveller. As a matter of fact I have had an actual experience of the practice, and although I have been a bona fide traveller I have found the inn closed.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that the bona fide traveller generally went one mile further on; and besides, there were very few districts throughout the country where a public-house or inn could not be found along the road. He thanked the Government most heartily for the new clause with reference to closing public-houses on election days. An hon. Member opposite said he had never found a case where there were irregularities at municipal elections; but he would refer him to the Report on the Dover election petition as an instance; and in the Minority Report of the Licensing Commission it was stated that a good deal of drinking went on during the polling days at municipal elections. It was 1325 said that this clause did not trust the electors of the country; but, at any rate, it trusted them as much as they did in Canada, New South Wales, and New Zealand, and he thought that if they followed the practice in those Colonies they would get on very well. There was one point of principle on which he would join issue with the hon. Member for Liverpool. The hon. Member and those who agreed with him, who pictured an idyllic public-house, a combination of the Continental café and the rural inn of the past, ought to support this clause. He did not think that the hon. Member would realise his ideal of a public-house by the Bill which he had introduced. "Give the liquor trade liberty," it was said, but why did they not use their liberty properly when they had it in the period of free sale from 1830 to 1872? During all those years they had absolutely free power to obtain a licence for any premises they chose, but all that they did was to let loose on the country small squalid houses of the worst character structurally. If the hon. Member had passed his Bill, it would have absolutely destroyed the Act of 1902, and would have struck a blow at the only chance of getting that superior kind of house about which the hon. Member talked. Then the hon. Member had told the House of cases where the justices would not allow sanitary provisions to be made in certain houses. He wondered if these were the doomed houses which the justices wished to get rid of. After all, the Report of the Royal Commission insisted on this power of imposing conditions as being absolutely necessary. One instance was given of an applicant for a licence producing a plan of a large palatial looking building with commerical rooms, dining-rooms, and the like; but it was found afterwards when the licence had been obtained that all the accommodation was a long drinking bar. That kind of thing went on until the Act of 1902 which gave power to the justices to impose conditions as to the re-arrangement of accesses, etc., but thanks to the Act of 1904 the justices had not got those powers now. He insisted that the sole chance of getting improved conditions in public-houses was by giving to the justices the powers set out in this clause. They were told to look to 1326 France; but he did not think he had very much to gain from France. In the last three weeks he had happened to light on a little town in the South-East of France, with a population of 2,000 inhabitants, where he saw sights and drink tragedies, the like of which he should not expect to find among a similar population in England. The Leader of the Opposition had complained in the Albeit Hall that he was not allowed to play dominoes in a public-house. That was an ancient delusion; the right hon. Gentleman could play dominoes in any public-house in England, and no one would object. There were some games of course which could not be played in a public-house; playing games for money was not permitted. He thought that if they got rid under the Bill of some of the worst houses they would be able to improve those which remained, and these would get a better trade, which was very desirable. All he contended for was that, although under this clause the justices did not get the whole of their old powers, they got some, and on that account he regarded it as a very valuable clause indeed, for which he sincerely thanked the Government. He was sure that many licensing benches, who were pursuing a policy of licensing reform irrespective of party politics, would be glad that the Government had thus placed more power in their hands than they had at present. Some districts, where the justices were backed up by public opinion could go faster than others in the way of reform. He believed that the whole standard of administration would be raised by these powers being given, and he begged to thank the Government for them.
§ * MR. GRETTON (Rutland)said that in spite of the very careful way in which the hon. Member for Lincoln had approached the subject in the speech he had just made, he did not explain the principles upon which he proposed to improve the licensed premises of the country by these restrictions. He observed that the hon. Member was very careful not to commit himself to any approval of the scheme which was sketched out in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool; nor did he suggest to the Houses any alternative method of improvement. The hon. Member clearly only went 1327 back to old restrictive provisions, which in the opinion of those who knew something of the licensed trade had worked great evil and harm to the character of the houses to which they were applied. The hon. Gentleman had cited the case of Liverpool. Of course, everyone knew that the working of the restrictions in the conduct of licensed premises by the justices in Liverpool had been tried to the uttermost. And what had been the result? The result of restrictive administration did not diminish drunkenness in Liverpool. In spite of all that the Liverpool justices had done, he was told that the statistics for drunkenness in Liverpool had increased. That was a curious commentary upon the result of the restrictions applied by the licensing justices in that town.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)The convictions for drunkenness in Liverpool are less than half what they were.
§ * MR. GRETTONIn the recent licensing Returns the hon. Member will find that the convictions for drunkenness have increased.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTSSince the Act of 1904 was passed, they have gone up; previous to that Act, they diminished from about 16,000 to 4,000.
§ * MR. GRETTONsaid that his recollection did not coincide with that of the hon. Member. If he recollected rightly, the convictions for drunkenness had increased steadily and regularly for some considerable time in spite of the reduction in the number of houses, and of the restrictions which the justices had imposed on the remaining houses.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTSOnly since 1904.
§ * MR. GRETTONsaid that the hon. Member for Lincoln seemed to be suffering from the confusion with which the supporters of the Bill had approached the whole subject. The hon. Member said that the reduction of the number of houses proposed by the Bill would enable the structural alterations to be carried out in the remaining houses out 1328 of the profits of an increased trade, but he thought that the hon. Member must have forgotten that any increase of profit from any increase of trade, which the hon. Member for Lincoln and his friends hoped would be very small, was to be applied the House was repeatedly told to the sinking fund. A good deal had been said on the subject of the long pull; and hon. Members had quoted expressions of opinion from retailers as to the advisability of suppressing it. With these expressions of opinion he entirely agreed. But if the long pull was to be suppressed, let them have it suppressed everywhere and on some general principle, and not by an arrangement applicable to one licensing district and not to another. If the hon. Member made a tour as a member of the ordinary public and not as an inspector of the licensed houses, within a mile radius of this House, he would find that the playing of games in them had been stopped, even if they were not games of chance or games for money. The hon. Member would also find that many other of the statements he had made were inaccurate with regard to a very large number of the licensed houses in this country. If the Government had proposed any reform which would improve the condition of the houses and the comfort of the customers in order to raise their tone, he would have given them hearty support and placed at their disposal his experience and knowledge. But this clause, however much its authors might disavow it, was a return to those restrictions constantly applied under the pressure of temperance reformers for the degradation of the public-houses, which turned them into mere drinking saloons on the American principle, where nothing was served except "hard drinks" and where customers were to be treated as persons of a disreputable character, slinking into a place which it was lowering to their reputation to enter. That mode of reform had been tried and this clause was an attempt again to carry it on and to degrade the public-houses with a view to their suppression. It was an entirely retrograde step. The other day a small Bill was introduced in another place for improving the public-houses by removing absurd and unreasonable restrictions upon their comforts and 1329 accommodation for customers, and in the debate the right rev. gentlemen who were now the friends of the Government attacked it with vehemence, as also did the Lord Chancellor and other members of the Government. Acts were better than words. The Acts of the Government and its friends in another place plainly showed their intentions and the principles embodied in this clause. Until the Government put in words making it clear that the meaning of the clause was not that a policy of restriction and degradation was to be pursued, this clause stood as an invitation to the justices to follow a line which had led to no good, but much harm.
§ SIR S. EVANSI have listened with a great deal of attention to every word of this debate and to every speech upon this interesting subject, including that of my hon. friend the Member for Lincoln, who has studied this matter from top to bottom and who knows it probably in all its details and its bearings better than anybody in this House. The speech of my hon. friend makes my task very much easier in replying on behalf of the Government to the criticisms which have been made to the clause and in offering the defence which we think it really deserves. We agree entirely with my hon. friend that this is a most valuable clause. I go further and say without any hesitation that if this clause, and this clause alone, formed a Bill and became an Act of Parliament it would be a most valuable enactment. The matter has been argued from two points of view. First of all, it has been said that we ought not to make these restrictions at all, and in the next place, it has been argued that they are matters which you ought not to put in the discretion of the local justices. I ask are the matters to deal with which we are proposing to endow the justices with power matters which should be dealt with in the regulation of the public-houses, and if they are, how are the matters to be dealt with except by the local magistrates? Can it be contended that the arrangement of the premises and the approach to those premises are not matters fit to be dealt with in the regulation of public-houses? 1330 It is said the clause will deteriorate the character of public-houses. We are confident the result will be exactly the contrary. I am not going to discuss at length the question of why public-houses have become merely drinking places. That the houses have become drinking houses is an undoubted fact. Some of these places which were mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for Lincoln are known to me. I know of palatial buildings put up, of a character to satisfy even the requirements of the hon. Member for Liverpool. They came into the hands of the brewers, and they deteriorated into something very little better than the bar of an ordinary public-house. The reason for this is in a large measure that old inns which were dotted about the country in the old days were kept by people who were interested in them personally, whereas now you have 80 per cent. of the houses in which liquor is sold for consumption on the premises owned by people who are not resident in them, and whose interest in the main—they cannot help it—is to increase the consumption of drink and the profits derived therefrom. As to the matters we are entrusting to the justices, the long pull is a matter for the trade rather than the outside public. It has been dealt with by my hon. friend As to the provision with regard to the sale of liquor on Sundays, the justices in many cases have it borne in upon them that the house is more fitted by reason of its character, position, and history to have a six-day rather than a seven-day licence. What is the position now? The licence-holder comes before the justices, who can bring some little pressure, no doubt, to bear upon him arising from the fact that if he does not consent to the suggestion of the justices that he should have a six-day licence, he thinks something will happen to him in the future. We know very often it happens that a person is squeezed on this matter, and the licensing justices have been able to convert premises into premises where you can only get drink on six days a week. We allow the justices in the locality in such cases to prevent the sale of liquor altogether on Sunday, and in order that there may be no unfairness we say the licence duty is to be a six-day and not a seven-day licence duty.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERWould it be possible under this clause for the licensing justices in any particular district to apply this six-day licensing provision to all the houses in their district if they choose?
§ SIR S. EVANSA sweeping order of that kind would not be in the power of the justices at all, but if the circumstances were the same regarding each public-house in the district they might do it in that way, but they must deal singly and judicially with each case as it comes before them. They may make this provision in regard to one, or they may make it in regard to the other houses in the district.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERwas understood to say it would have the same effect as a general order.
§ SIR S. EVANSOf course if a general order were made they would have no power but to go judicially through the cases of the public-houses in their district; they could restrict the sale of intoxicating liquor during Sunday. As to the bona-fide traveller's inn, I am afraid there is in many parts of the country what may be described as the mala-fide traveller's inn and not as the bona-fide traveller's. Let me give a picture to the House, not an imaginary one, of a peaceful village, say, within seven miles of a great industrial centre, a village where the inhabitants may spend their Sunday restfully and contentedly enjoying themselves. It may well be that persons who cycle out there and frequent the inn may disturb the whole quietness and comfort of the village, so that the inn, in fact, derives the whole of its profits from the trade that is done with these people who come out on Sundays—these mala-fide travellers as I have called them for this purpose, although it would be difficult to prove that they were not bona-fide travellers. It is wrong; and would it not be beneficial to empower the justices, as we propose to do, to say in such a case that this inn is used simply and solely for this purpose, and that it should not be allowed to continue? The hon. Member for Liverpool, who has criticised this Bill with a greater knowledge of these matters than I possess, said there were some Members of this House who would 1332 like to see every public-house in the land dirty, inconvenient, and disreputable. I do not believe there is a single Member of this House who desires a single public-house in the whole of our land to answer to that description.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)What I gathered and what I understood the hon. Member to say was that from the hostility shown by some hon. Members opposite to the Bill, he thought they would like to see the public-houses in that condition.
§ SIR S. EVANSThe noble Lord I do not think could have understood-The hon. Member said there are many Members of this Home who would like to see every public-house dirty, inconvenient, and disreputable. I believe there is not a single Member who desires to see a single public-louse in the whole of our land to answer that description. No; it is because we believe that the effect of this clause which is now under discussion will be in entirely the contrary direction that we ask the House with every confidence to give it a cordial reception. There are some observations from the point of view of history that I must make. I am now dealing with the question of whether we are unjust. All these conditions which the magistrates are empowered to attach to the renewal of on-licences can already, under the Act of 1904, be attached to even-new on-licence. That power, I have no doubt, was given to the magistrates for the purpose of enabling the character of the houses and the trade they did to be raised. If it was right to give the justices the power to apply these conditions to new on-licences, I submit it is also right that they should be allowed to attach them to all on-licences in the country if they think it is necessary. 11 is said that it may be a burden—that may be so; but I respectfully submit, if a house, owing to its structural condition, or owing to the access to it, or to the arrangement for drinking on the premises, is not fitted any longer to enjoy a licence, it ought to be closed. That was the law also before 1904 as applied to every public-house in the land. Everybody who has studied this matter knows that 1333 conditions such as these have been applied in places before the Act of 1904. The reason why there was an alteration after the Act of 1904 was that all that the justices could ask was for a voluntary undertaking on the part of the licence-holder, and the pressure which could be brought to bear before 1904 has disappeared by reason of that Act. Because, under the Act of 1904, if by reason of disobedience to or the neglect of the warning of the licensing authorities a licence was taken away, it was taken away with the obligation to pay compensation, and many licence-holders in consequence made far better terms than were possible before that Act came into operation. It has been said that we may have a variety of conditions arising from capricious and fantastic conduct of the justices. That is not our experience under the present law, and we do not think it is likely to arise under this clause. It is necessary that there should be variety of practice, because there is a great variety in the circumstances and conditions of each locality. It will be admitted by everybody that so long as they are the licensing authority, the justices are the best judges in these matters. Complaint has been made more than once that we have not allowed the justices to regulate the hours for closing at night. We have not done that because, perhaps, there is enough in this clause already, but that brings me naturally to the question of the Amendment which is in my name on the Paper, and which, I hope, will be added to the Bill. This Amendment is intended to deal with what is known as the "noggin" evil. I find from the Home Office that many complaints have been made of this most obnoxious and evil practice, which consists of placing upon the counter of a public-house small noggins of spirits for men proceeding to their work in the morning. The number is so large that there is no time to draw them, and they are placed on the counter so the men can take as many as they like, and in the interests of the men themselves and of their employers it is essential that when it is brought to their knowledge that such an evil as that exists in a locality the justices shall have the power to prevent the practice being continued by putting into force the prohibition 1334 of the sale of spirits between six and eight o'clock in the morning. This is important not only from the point of view of the workmen and the employers, but also from the point of view of the licence-holder himself. If he is the owner of the house he can of course easily stop it. If he is not the owner but only the manager how can he possibly say he will not serve these men? He cannot do so. I heard from my hon. friend today that a licensed victualler came to him in a certain city where he had been addressing a meeting and said to him: "Mr. Helme, you are going to bring in a temperance Bill. The best thing you can put into your Bill to promote temperance is a provision to stop any drinking between six and eight in the morning." Reference has been made to a man's loss of work on Monday by reason of his drinking on Sunday. Similarly, by reason of his "noggin," you may have loss of work and great deterioration in the character of the work. I wish to refer incidentally to the new clause relating to polling days. I am not dealing with the question of Parliamentary elections, we have dealt with them in another way. I am now only dealing with local elections. We have given the magistrates power to make such regulations as they think fit. If it is desirable during local elections that some such condition should be attached, surely they should have power to do so. I want to say something with reference to the new clause regarding Parliamentary polling. It has afforded immense amusement to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it provided the Leader of the Opposition with an excuse to vote against the clause, the principle of which he himself put forward in the course of the debates. It is suggested that by reason of the drafting of the clause when an election takes place in one constituency all the public-houses in the remaining 669 constituencies will have to be closed. That is a perfectly absurd contention. It is a mere question of drafting, and I shall be very glad to accept the words of the noble Lord opposite when we come to them. They are quite unnecessary, for there is no Court in the realm which would have construed in the way suggested the new clause as originally drafted. Lest there should be anything in the 1335 nature of injustice, undue pressure, or oppression of any kind under any order which the justices may make in attaching conditions to licences under the powers now given to them, we have expressly given the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions against any order made by the licensing justices. We regard this clause as a most valuable clause, so valuable that if it were the only clause it would deserve to become an Act of Parliament.
§ * MR. RAWLINSONregretted that the Solicitor-General had abandoned the masterly stroke by which they would have showed what they might call the border difficulty. If, when there was an election in one ward, they allowed the public-houses in another ward on the other side of the street to be open, there would be an obvious injustice and anomaly; and, when he read the new clause, he, therefore, saw with delight that the Government were dealing with the difficulty in a masterly way by enacting that in bye-elections all the public-houses throughout the country should be closed. One hon. Member sitting on the same side of the House as himself took it as the serious intention of the Government. He was afraid he did not credit them with the same amount of skill. He realised that the clause had been drawn in a hasty way, and that the masterly stroke was probably the work of the draftsman. The difficulty, therefore, still remained. Did the Government intend that the licensing justices should require a house on one side of the street to be closed when a local government election was taking place in a constituency which included the other side of the street? The learned Solicitor-General had made a most eloquent speech on a subject which he admitted was new to him. He said that the new clause was directed to meet what he called the noggin scandal. He understood that working men, on their way to work between six and eight in the morning, were in the habit of going into public -houses and bluing drink.
§ SIR S. EVANSWhat I said was that they are in the habit of getting noggins of spirits.
§ * MR. RAWLINSONpresumed the hon. and learned Member meant that they paid for it in the ordinary way.
§ SIR S. EVANSWhat I meant was that there was no time to order and that it was there ready for them. They swallow it and put down the money.
§ * MR. RAWLINSONsaid he supposed the hon. and learned Member meant that a workman, a well-known customer, went into the public-house and had his usual refreshment ready for him without his making any specific request for it. The Solicitor-General then pointed out the iniquity of drinking in the early morning. There was a lot to be said in favour of that contention. He did not himself drink spirits in the early morning, and therefore in accordance with what he understood to be the principles of modern teetotal legislation he was to have no sympathy with or regard for the rights of those who did. Let the House, if it wished, prohibit the sale of spirits before 8 a.m.; but what he contended was that the question was one for the House to decide and that it should not be left to the local bench. If the Government did not trust the working man, let them boldly say the public-houses were not to be opened in the early morning, and not leave it to the magistrates. He was not, he was afraid, familiar with the pages of the Royal Commissioners' Report, but if his recollection served him rightly, they agreed that it was desirable that matters such as these should be dealt with uniformly and not left to the discretion of the magistrates. That being so, he felt sure that, after the strong temperance speech of the Solicitor-General, if the Government thought this a right thing to do, they should make it universal and compulsory. Surely it was a strong thing to say that the magistrates might close all the public houses before eight in the morning. Subsections (a) and (b) dealt simply with the arrangement of the premises and the access to the premises. They made only a slight alteration to the Act of 1902. Under that Act the magistates had full power to make conditions as to alterations in any part of the premises where intoxicating liquor was sold, and that, he thought, had been held to include access. If such an order was made under the Act of 1902, no fresh order could be made for the ensuing five 1337 years. That reasonable protection for the licence-holders was taken away by these subsections. Again, under the Act of 1902, if a licence-holder failed to comply with such an order, he could be fined a particular sum; but there subsections also said that if the magistrates took away his licence for non-compliance with such order he should not be entitled to compensation. That was, he ventured to think, dealing rather harshly with the man. The voice of the trade had been made clear in the question of the long pull. They said it ought to be dealt with in the same manner throughout the country and not left to be dealt with by individual magistrates. He considered that was only reasonable. Another subsection left it to the magistrates to say whether intoxicating liquor should be sold during any part of Sunday. They had been discussing Sunday closing all the afternoon and had arrived at certain resolutions, and now they were going to put it in the power of the local bench to
§ act contrary to those resolutions and make other conditions as to Sunday closing in their district. The trade was entitled to ask that there should be certainty in this matter, and the Government ought to make a law which would be certain throughout the kingdom and not leave it to the discretion of the magistrates who might alter from year to year. The Government had not shown much confidence in the magistrates with regard to the reduction of licences, but this proposed power was ill-placed, because its exercise might vary from year to year according to the individual opinion of magistrates. They were introducing uncertainty, which was injurious to any business, and for that reason he thought the clause was bad in form though its intention might be good.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 398.)
1341| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Chance, Frederick William | Fenwick, Charles |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. G. R. | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Ferens, T. R. |
| Agnew, George William | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Findlay, Alexander |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christehurch) | Clough, William | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Clynes, J. R. | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Armitage, R. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Gill, A. H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cooper, G. J. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Glover, Thomas |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Cowan, W. H. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Beale, W. P. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Crossley, William J. | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Curran, Peter Francis | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Bell, Richard | Dalmeny, Lord | Hall, Frederick |
| Bennett, E. N. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Harcourt, Ht. Hn. L. (Rossendale |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Davies, David (Montgomery Co, | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Harvey, A. G. G. (Rochdale) |
| Bright, J. A. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Duckworth, Sir James | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Henry, Charles S. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Byles, William Pollard | Erskine, David C. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Cameron, Robert | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hodge, John |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Hooper, A. G. | Morrell, Philip | Snowden, P. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Morse, L. L. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Myer, Horatio | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Hudson, Walter | Napier, T. B. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Nicholls, George | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Jackson, R. S. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Straus. B. S. (Mile End) |
| Jacoby, James Alfred | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Summerbell, T. |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Grady, J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Partington, Oswald | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Paulton, James Mellor | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Jowett, F. W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Tomkinson, James |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lamb Edmund G. (Leominster | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central | Verney, F. W. |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E. | Vivian, Henry |
| Lambert, George | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Lamont, Norman | Radford, G. H. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Rainy, A. Rolland | Walton, Joseph |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rees, J. D. | Waring, Walter |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Rendall, Athelstan | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lupton, Arnold | Richardson, A. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Ridsdale, E. A. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Lynch, H. B. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Robinson, S. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas |
| Maclean, Donald | Rose, Charles Day | Wiles, Thomas |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Rowlands, J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| M'Callum, John M. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| M'Crae, Sir George | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Williamson, A. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Marnham, F. J. | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Massie, J. | Sears, J. E. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Seaverns, J. H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Menzies, Walter | Seely, Colonel | Winfrey, R. |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Shackleton, David James | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Middlebrook, William | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. | |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Shipman, Dr. John G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Mond, A. | Silcock, Thomas Ball | |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Simon, John Allsebrook | |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Sinclair Rt. Hon. John | |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Fletcher, J. S. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Clive, Percy Archer | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Courthope, G. Loyd | Gooch, Henry Fubitt (Peckham) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Craik, Sir Henry | Gretton, John |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Cross, Alexander | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Haddock, George B. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Hamilton, Marquess of |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Faber, George Denison (York) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Cave, George | Fardell, Sir T. George | Hills, J. W. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fell, Arthur | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Oddy, John James | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Kerry, Earl of | Ratcliff, Major R. F. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Young, Samuel |
| Lowe, Sir Francis William | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Younger, George |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Morrison-Bell, Captain | Stanier, Beville | |
| Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield | Starkey, John R. |
§ And, it being after half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, to put forthwith the Questions one the Amendments moved by the Government, of which Notice had been given, which were necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock this day, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 11th November.
1342
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 14, line 24, at the end, to insert the words '(e) the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor or of any kind of intoxicating liquor before the hour of 8 a.m. on any day.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 287; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 399.)
1345| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Clough, William | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Clynes, J. R. | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Agnew, George William | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gill, A. H. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. |
| Armitage, R. | Cooper, G. J. | Glover, Thomas |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cowan, W. H. | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Crosfield, A. H. | Hall, Frederick |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cross, Alexander | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Crossley, William J. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Beale, W. P. | Curran, Peter Francis | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tvdvil) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Dalmeny, Lord | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Bell, Richard | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Harwood, George |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Bright, J. A. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Duckworth, Sir James | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Henry, Charles S. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Hodge, John |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Erskine, David C. | Hooper, A. G. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Cameron, Robert | Everett, R. Lacey | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fenwick, Charles | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Ferens, T. R. | Hudson, Walter |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Chance, Frederick William | Findlay, Alexander | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Jackson, R. S. |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Spicer, (Sir Albert |
| Jardine, Sir J. | Nicholls, George | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Steadman, W. C. |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Stewart Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Grady, J. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Partington, Oswald | Summerbell, T. |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Paulton, James Mellor | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Lambert, George | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Lamont, Norman | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Tomkinson, James |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Radford, G. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Rainy, A. Rolland | Verney, F. W. |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Vivian, Henry |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rees, J. D. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Rendall, Athelstan | Walters, John Tudor |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Walton, Joseph |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs | Richardson, A., | Wearing, Walter |
| Mackarness, Frederic C. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Maclean, Donald | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| M'Callum, John M. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Waterlow, D. S. |
| M'Crae, Sir George | Robinson, S. | Watt, Henry A. |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Rose, Charles Day | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rowlands, J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Marnham, F. J. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Massie, J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Menzies, Walter | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen |
| Middlebrook, William | Sears, J. E. | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Seaverns, J. H. | Williamson, A. |
| Mond, A. | Seely, Colonel | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Shackleton, David James | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Morrell, Philip | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Winfrey, R. |
| Morse, L. L. | Simon, John Allsebrook | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | |
| Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Myer, Horatio | Snowden, P. | |
| Napier, T. B. | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres Lord | Faber, George Denison (York) | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Fell, Arthur | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fletcher, J. S. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gardner, Ernest | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Meysey, Thompson, E. C. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Gretton, John | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Oddy, John James |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Haddock, George B. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Cave, George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hills, J. W. | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kennaway, Rt. Hn Sir John H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Kerry, Earl of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Duncan, Robert Lanark, Govan | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Starkey, John R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) | Younger, George |
| Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord | |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| Walsh, Stephen | Young, Samuel |
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 14, line 27, to leave, out the words 'as amended by this Act.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 288; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 400.)
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N) |
| Agnew, George William | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Armitage, R. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hudson, Walter |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Duckworth, Sir James | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Jackson, R. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Edwards Sir Francis (Radnor) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Beale, W. P. | Erskine, David C. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jowett, F. W. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. |
| Bell, Richard | Everett, R. Lacey | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Bennett, E. N. | Fenwick, Charles | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Ferens, T. R. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Black, Arthur W. | Findlay Alexander | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lambert, George |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lamont, Norman |
| Bright, J. A. | Fullerton, Hugh | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Furness, Sir Christopher | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Brodie, H. C. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gill, A. H. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Glover, Thomas | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lupton, Arnold |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Byles, William Pollard | Griffith, Ellis J. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Cameron, Robert | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hall, Frederick | Mackarness Frederic C. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Maclean, Donald |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Clough, William | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Clynes, J. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Harwood, George | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mason, A. W. E. (Coventry) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Helme, Norval Watson | Massie, J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Menzies, Walter |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cowan, W. H. | Henry, Charles S. | Middlebrook, William |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Higham, John Sharp | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Crossley, William J. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Mond, A. |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Hodge, John | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
1347
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 14, line 29, to leave out the words 'closing of the premised.' and to insert the words 'prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption of the premises except
1348
to persons lodging on the premises and persons, taking meals on the premises in a room set apart for that purpose.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
1349§ The House divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 401.)
1347| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N) |
| Agnew, George William | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S) | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Armitage, R. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hudson, Walter |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Duckworth, Sir James | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Jackson, R. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Jardine, Sir J. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Edwards Sir Francis (Radnor) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Beale, W. P. | Erskine, David C. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jowett, F. W. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. |
| Bell, Richard | Everett, R. Lacey | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Bennett, E. N. | Fenwick, Charles | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Ferens, T. R. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Black, Arthur W. | Findlay Alexander | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lambert, George |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lamont, Norman |
| Bright, J. A. | Fullerton, Hugh | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Furness, Sir Christopher | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Brodie, H. C. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gill, A. H. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Glover, Thomas | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lupton, Arnold |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Byles, William Pollard | Griffith, Ellis J. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Cameron, Robert | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hall, Frederick | Mackarness Frederic C. |
| Chance, Frederick William | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Maclean, Donald |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Clough, William | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Clynes, J. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Harwood, George | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mason, A. W. E. (Coventry) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Helme, Norval Watson | Massie, J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hemmerde, Edward George | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Menzies, Walter |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cowan, W. H. | Henry, Charles S. | Middlebrook, William |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Higham, John Sharp | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Crossley, William J. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Mond, A. |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Hodge, John | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Rose, Charles Day | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Morrell, Philip | Rowlands, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Morse, L. L. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Vivian, Henry |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Myer, Horatio | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Napier, T. B. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Walton, Joseph |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Nicholls, George | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Waring, Walter |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Norton, Captain Cecil William | Sears, J. E. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Seaverns, J. H. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Seely, Colonel | Waterlow, D. S. |
| O'Grady, J. | Shackleton, David James | Watt, Henry A. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick P.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Partington, Oswald | Shipman, Dr. John G. | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh |
| Paulton, James Mellor | Silcock, Thomas Ball | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Simon, John Allsebrock | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Snowden, P. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Soares, Ernest J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, (Central) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Williams Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Steadman, W. C. | Williams Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Radford, G. H. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Williamson, A. |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Rees, J. D. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Winfrey, R. |
| Richardson, A. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thomasson, Franklin | |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | |
| Robinson, S. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Tomkinson, James | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George B. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hamilton, Marquess of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark), |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Clive, Percy Archer | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord |
| Cross, Alexander | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Young, Samuel |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Younger, George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Oddy, John James |
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Agnew, George William | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Lambert, George |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lamont, Norman |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Erskine, David C. | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis |
| Armitage, R. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Everett, R. Lacey | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Fenwick, Charles | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Ferens, T. R. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Findlay, Alexander | Lupton, Arnold |
| Barnard, E. B. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Barnes, G. N. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Fullerton, Hugh | Lynch, H. B. |
| Beale, W. P. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Bell, Richard | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Maclean, Donald |
| Bennett, E. N. | Glover, Thomas | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Gooch, George Pea body (Bath) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Bright, J. A. | Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Maddison, Frederick |
| Brodie, H. C. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Hall, Frederick | Marnham, F. J. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Massie, J. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Menzies, Walter |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Middlebrook, William |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cameron, Robert | Harwood, George | Mond, A. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Helme, Norval Watson | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Hemmerde, Edward George | Morrell, Philip |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morse, L. L. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Clough, William | Henry, Charles S. | Murray, Capt. Hn A. C. (Kincard. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Higham, John Sharp | Myer, Horatio |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hobart, Sir Robert | Napier, T. B. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Hodge, John | Nicholls, George |
| Compton-Rickett, Sir J. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hooper, A. G. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Horniman, Emslie John | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Grady, J. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hudson, Walter | Partington, Oswald |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Hyde, Clarendon | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Crossley, William J. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Jackson, R. S. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Jardine, Sir J. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Radford, G. H. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Jowett, F. W. | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Duckworth, Sir James | Kekewich, Sir George | Rees, J. D. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Snowden, P. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Soares, Ernest J. | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Richardson, A. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Steadman, W. C. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh. |
| Robinson, S. | Strachey, Sir Edward | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Rose, Charles Day | Summerbell, T. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Rowlands, J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen |
| Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Thomasson, Franklin | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | Williamson, A. |
| Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Sears, J. E. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Verney, F. W. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Seely, Colonel | Villiers, Ernest Amherst | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Shackleton, David James | Vivian, Henry | Winfrey, R. |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Walsh, Stephen | |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Walters, John Tudor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Walton, Joseph | |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n | |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Waring, Walter |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | Oddy, John James |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Gretton, John | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Haddock, George B. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Hamilton, Marquess of | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kills, J. W. | Stanier, Beville |
| Cave, George | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Starkey, John R. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Clive, Percy Archer | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lane-Fox, C. R. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Young, Samuel |
| Cross, Alexander | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Younger, George |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lowe, Sir Francis William | |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster. |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 14, line 30, to leave out the words 'Parliamentary or.'
In page 15, line 28, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that in the event, of the death of the holder of any such excepted excise licence after the commencement of this Act and before the time when the first application is made for a justices' licence, the person (if any) to whom the excepted excise licence has been transferred shall be deemed to have held that licence at the commencement of this Act,'
In page 15, line 33, after the word 'cider,' to insert the words 'and perry.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.